..AILROAD  REFORM 
[N  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 

Ancient,  Modem  and  Future 

By  WILLIAM  E.  CHANDLER 
f ■ ' In  Three  Chapters 

A Supplemental  CHAPTER  FOUR 

...  AND  . . . 

AN  AFTERWORD 


With  Sundry  Additional  Papers  Relating  to 

OSECRANS  W.  PILLSBURY 

...  AND  . . . 

HENRY  B.  QUINSY 

Candidates  for  Governor 

THE  PLATFORM  REPUBLICANS 

Led  by  SHERMAN  E.  BURROUGHS 

The  Idiosyncrasies  of  Messrs.  Churchill,  Pillsbury, 

D.  C.  Remich  and  Streeter 

The  New  Leaders  of  Reform  in  1908 

And  the  Pending  Merger  of  the  New  Hampshire  and  Boston 
Railroads  with  New  York  Corporations 


THE  RUMFORD  PRINTING  COMPANY,  CONCORD.  N.  H. 
August  24,  1908 

[From  whom  copies  of  this  pamphlet  may  be  obtained  gratis  through  postal  card  requests] 
[Second  Edition.  September  7,  1908] 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


(1)  Railroad  Reform  in  New  Hampshire,  Ancient,  Modern  and  Future  : 

Chapter  One — July  28,  1908  . . . * * 

(2)  Chapter  Two— July  29,  1908  

(3)  Chapter  Three— August  1,  1908  

[Readers  are  advised  first  to  peruse  Chapters  Three  and  Four  and 
the  Afterword.] 

(4)  Senatorial  Election  of  1901 : 

Mr.  Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury’s  Confession  of  July  31,  1908 

(5)  Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury,  Free  Passes,  July  27,  1908 

(6)  The  Platform  Republicans— Letter  from  Mr.  Chandler  to  Sher- 

man E.  Burroughs,  July  31,  1908  


PAGE. 

1 
4 

8 


18 

14 

15 


17 


[No  reply  received  up  to  September  7.] 

(7)  Second  Letter  to  Mr.  Burroughs— August  10,  1908 

[No  reply  received  up  to  September  7.] 

(8)  Supplemental  Chapter  Four  of  Railroad  Reform,  August  17,  1908  19 

(9)  The  Merger  of  the  New  Hampshire  Railroads  into  New  York 

City  Corporations— Mr.  Chandler’s  Letter  to  Attorney-Gen- 
eral Bonaparte  of  December  5,  1907,  Article  in  New  England 
Magazine  for  May,  1908  ^ 

(10)  Mr.  Chandler’s  Public  Appeal  Against  the  Merger,  June  22,  1908  2( 

AFTERWORD. 

(11)  The  New  Leaders  of  Railroad  Reform  in  New  Hampshire,  1908: 

Messrs.  Churchill  and  Pillsbury,  D.  C.  Remich  and  Streeter 
the  Lamb  and  the  Wolf;  the  Hornet  and  the  Spider- 
August  24,  1908  ^ 


>v 


RAILROAD  REFORM  IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 


Ancient,  Modern  and  Future,  in  Three 
Chapters 

(By  William  E.  Chandler.) 

Chapter  One,  July  28,  1908. 


To  the  Republicans  of  New  Hampshire: 

I am  impelled  by  the  existing  political 
situation  in  our  state  to  continue  my 
custom  of  free  and  frank  speech  by 
stating  what  I think  the  Republican 
party  ought  to  do.  What  is  first  said 
may  be  considered  as  too  personal  to 
myself;  what  is  said  in  conclusion  I 
hope  will  be  thought  broad  and  un- 
selfish; and  a wise  conclusion  for  U3 
all  to  reach.  . 

Ancient  Reform,  1881  and  Before. 

About  a third  of  a century  ago  I be- 
gan to  fight  the  railroad  evils,  the  de- 
struction of  which  has  been  and  is  now 
a principal  aim  of  the  Republican  re- 
formers of  New  Hampshire,  as  a part 
of  the  similar  Roosevelt  policy  in  the 
nation.  In  the  legislature  of  1881  I 
exposed  the  wrong  and  attempted  the 
suppression  of  railroad  free  passes.  On 
June  23,  1881,  I introduced  in  our  leg- 
islature a bill  prohibiting  illegal  free 
passes,  and  providing  that  every  stock- 
holder might  see  the  lists  of  free  passes 
issued — which  practically  would  have 
made  public  the  existence  of  all  passes. 
»On  July  14,  a member  moved  its  in- 
-1  definite  postponement  saying  that  he 
i|  noticed  that  the  bill  was  to  take  effect 
'on  its  passage;  if  it  did  it  would  put 
f him  in  a sort  of  dilemma  as  he  wanted 
I to  go  home  and  use  his  pass.  He 
heard  others  around  him  say  “Me  too.” 
He  moved  an  indefinite  postponement 
and  there  were  176  yeas  and  36  nays. 
Later,  I moved  the  section  as  an 
amendment  to  another  bill  and  on  Au- 
gust 11,  was  voted  down  145  to  53.  No- 
• body  but  myself  took  an  active  part  in 
this  movement  against  free  passes. 


Complaint  to  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission. 

My  opposition  to  free  passes  being 
constantly  kept  up,  I complained 
against  the  Boston  & Maine  railroad  to 
the  interstate  commerce  commission  of 
the  United  States  and  on  December  29, 
1891,  the  commission  decided  that  it 
was  unlawful  for  the  railroad  to  do  as 
it  confessed  it  had  been  freely  doing — 
give  free  passes  to  “gentlemen  long 
eminent  in  the  public  service,”  higher 
officers  of  the  states  of  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  Vermont  and  Massachu- 
setts, prominent  officials  of  the  United 
States,  members  of  the  legislature, 
railroad  committees  of  the  above 
named  states  and  persons  whose  “good 
will”  was  claimed  to  be  “important  to 
the  corporation.” 

After  this  decision  the  railroad  con- 
tinued to  give  passes  to  every  New 
Hampshire  politician  who  wanted  them 
but  tried  to  cover  its  conduct  by  say- 
ing “Good  for  no  part  of  an  interstate 
journey.” 

The  “Paupers  and  Others  ” Legisla- 
ture of  1897. 

My  continued  contest  against  criminal 
free  passes,  however,  proved  so  dan- 
gerous to  the  railroad  and  the  politi- 
cians that  in  1897  they  came  to  realize 
that  something  must  be  done;  especial- 
ly as  the  members  of  the  legislature 
meeting  on  January  6th  of  that  year 
all  had  free  passes  given  to  them. 

But  not  until  March  23  did  the  bill 
adding  to  the  law  allowing  free  passes 
to  paupers  the  words  “and  others” 
make  its  appearance  under  the  de- 
ceptive title  of  “An  act  in  amendment 


S 


9 


of  chapter  160  public  statutes  relating 
to  passengers,  freight  and  railroad 
police.”  On  that  very  day  it  was  rail- 
roaded through  the  senate — being  re- 
ported by  the  senate  committee,  rules 
suspended,  read  a third  time  by  its 
title,  passed  and  sent  to  the  house. 

On  the  same  day  in  the  house  the 
bill  was  referred  to  the  committee  on 
railroads;  on  the  next  day  it  was  by 
Mr.  James  E.  French  reported  that  it 
ought  to  pass. 

‘‘On  motion  of  Mr.  Batchelder  of 
Keene  the  rules  were  suspended  the 
bill  read  a third  time  by  its  title  and 
passed.”  Mr.  Batchelder  stated  that 
the  object  of  the  bill  was  to  make  legal 
the  issue  of  passes  to  members  of  the 
legislature  and  the  bill  passed  without 
objection  under  a suspension  of  the 
rules. 

On  the  26th  the  legislature  adjourned 
and  went  home  on  the  passes  they  had 
so  suddenly  legalized.  I notice  that 
Mr.  Rosecrans  Vi.  Pillsbury  was  a 
member  of  this  legislature  of  Mr. 
Batchelder’s. 

Back  to  1900. 

Under  this  system  of  free  passes  the 
results  had  been  on  November  6,  1900, 
stated  by  me  as  follows: 

‘‘The  New  Hampshire  system  of  rail- 
roads is  gone.  Consolidation  has  come; 
competition  is  extinguished;  the  power 
of  the  railroad  commission  to  control 
rates  in  advance  has  gone;  stock  has 
been  watered  by  many  millions  of  dol- 
lars; the  state  received  nothing  for  its 
rights  in  the  Concord  railroad;  free 
passes  are  universal  and  have  been  ex- 
pressly legalized;  and  the  railroad  is 
the  all-controlling  political  power  in 
the  state.” 

On  October  25,  1900,  I had  published 
the  following: 

‘‘The  lawyers  of  the  state  are  nearly 
all  under  the  retainers  of  the  railroad. 
Most  of  them  receive  nothing  more  than 
free  passes  marked  “Rtr”  and  they 
sign  agreements  binding  themselves  in 
all  things  to  the  company.  The  active 
politicians  of  the  state  of  both  parties 
receive  free  passes.  The  nominees  for 
the  various  state  officers  in  both  parties 
are  selected  by  a small  coterie  of  rail- 
road employees  assembled  either  in  the 
office  of  the  manager  in  Concord,  or  in 
the  railroad  office  in  Boston:  or  in  the 
office  of  the  principal  attorney  in  Con- 
cord.” 


The  Free  Pass  Evil. 

My  expositions  of  the  free  pass  evil 
were  persistent  and  constant.  Certain 
extracts  may  well  be  read  now;  as  fol- 
lows: 

“Free  passes  or  mileage  tickets  given 
away. 

“The  distribution  of  these  is  wide- 
spread and  everywhere  prevalent 
among  government  officials  and  persons 
of  influence.  All  lawyers  ride  free.  The 
editors  and  newspaper  managers  ride 
free.  Ministers  ride  free  or  at  special 
rates.  The  governor  rides  free.  His 
council  ride  free.  All  officers  at  the 
state  house  ride  free.  The  members 
of  the  legislature  all  ride  free,  not  only 
during  the  session  but  during  the  rest 
of  the  year. . County,  city,  and  town 
officers  ride  free.  The  wives  and  child- 
ren of  most  of  the  freeriders  also  ride 
free.  Above  all,  local  politicians  in 
every  town  and  ward  ride  free.  The 
exceptions  to  the  above  statements  are 
so  few  that  they  prove  the  general  rule. 
Corruption  by  free  passes  and  mileage 
tickets  is  almost  universal.  No  person 
of  any  importance  in  town  or  state 
fails  to  ride  free  unless  he  omits  to 
ask  for  his  free  pass  or  his  free  ticket. 

If  any  person,  high  or  low,  rich  or  poor, 
is  heard  to  make  vigorous  protest 
against  any  railroad  wrong,  he  is  ap- 
proached by  some  ready  emissary  of 
the  roads  and  quieted  by  a free  pass. 

“Although  the  railroads  are  public 
corporations  and  there  ought  to  be  no 
more  secrets  about  their  business  than 
about  that  of  the  state  or  national  gov- 
ernment, yet  all  lists  of  free  riders  are 
kept  from  the  public  knowledge.  There 
may  be  5,000,  there  may  be  10,000,  of 
these  persons,  hired  by  the  railroads 
by  free  passes,  but  no  authentic  know- 
ledge of  their  numbers  or  names  reach- 
es the  people.  The  man  who  pays  his 
fare  does  not  know  but  what  his  next 
neighbors  in  the  car,  or  all  the  other 
persons  in  the  car,  ride  free.  The 
free  pass  evil  it  is  difficult  to  abate  be- 
cause it  is  impossible  to  discover  its 
details.  No  record  is  kept  of  the  free 
riders,  and  if  there  were  it  would  not 
be  accessible  to  the  public.  The  facts 
above  stated  are  all  true,  and  yet  it 
would  be  difficult  to  prove  them.  The 
railroad  officials  keep  silent  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  say  they  are  not  true.  Their 
consciences  are  blunted  by  long  ex- 
perience in  the  wrong  and  they  lie  with  i 
recklessness  and  fearlessness  if  asked 


3 


[ 

1 


about  free  passes  in  particular  or  in 
general.” 

No  Free  Government  in  New  Hamp- 
shire. 

“There  is  no  government  absolutely 
free  in  New  Hampshire.  Railroad 
passes  and  railroad  money  dominate 
the  state;  and  the  governor,  councillors, 
senators,  and  representatives  are  the 
mere  agents  in  their  offices  of  the  two 
great  railroads.  Will  any  one  dare 
deny  this?  I challenge  him  to  a dis- 
cussion of  the  question,  and  point  him 
to  such  notorious  and  overwhelming 
facts  as  these:  (1)  That  every  candi- 
date for  governor,  councillor,  or  legis- 
lator, of  either  party,  is  nominated  by 
I railroad  influence;  and  (2)  that  the 
nominations  are  controlled  by  free 
passes  and  by  large  railroad  money  ex- 
I penditures,  the  secrets  of  which  are 
i kept  off  the  records  of  the  railroads 
and  are  known  only  to  the  railroad 
agents  who  deal  out  the  passes  and 
funds.” 

Republican  Peril  and  Duty. 

“The  evils  which  result  from  railroad 
rule  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
| are  many  and  far-reaching.  The  very 
existence  of  the  system  of  free  passes 
and  of  widespread  corruption  by  the 
use  of  railroad  money  Is  demoralizing 
in  the  extreme.  The  foundations  of 
public  and  private  virtue  alike  are 
weakened  by  the  notorious  and  fla- 
j grant  violations  of  law  involved  in 
the  distribution  of  free  passes  and  the 
corruption  by  secret  bribes  from  rail- 
roads of  the  voters  and  officials  of  the 
state;  without  regard  to  the  ultimate 
object  of  the  system,  whether  that  be 
bad  or  good.  The  integrity  and  moral 
1 tone  of  a community  are  as  distinctly 
| lowered  by  such  vices  as  they  are  by 
intemperance  and  licentiousness.  If 
permanently  tolerated  extreme  deg- 
radation of  morals  and  government  is 
1 sure  to  result.” 

Appeal  to  Legislature  of  1899. 

“Let  a New  Hampshire  legislature 
for  once  resist  ‘the  shameless  and  un- 
scrupulous lobbying’  and  the  selfish 
! pressure  of  the  ‘powerful  and  insolent 
corporation,’  and  establish  and  pro- 
claim the  honor  and  manhood  of  the 
leading  and  influential  Republicans  of 
the  state — which  Republicans  you  are. 

! “To  the  Republican  members  I have 
the  right  to  appeal  to  avoid  the  dis- 
honor which  will  come  to  them  if,  with 


the  railroad  legislation  of  the  present 
session  before  them,  they  vote  with 
these  free  passes  in  their  pockets.  Is 
there  one  of  them  who  is  willing  to 
hang  his  free  pass  upon  his  breast,  and 
rise  in  his  seat,  and  vote  on  railroad 
bills  with  his  badge  of  servitude  in 
plain  sight  of  the  world?  Is  there  one 
of  them  who  is  willing  to  so  vote,  and 
at  the  end  of  the  session  go  to  his 
home,  frame  his.  pass,  and  hang  it  up 
in  his  house,  tell  his  wife  and  children 
what  it  means,  and  that  there  it  shall 
remain  during  future  years  to  be  the 
record  of  his  shame?  Send  back  the 
passes  and  mileage  books.” 

Manchester  Mirror. 

The  Manchester  Mirror  of  December 
10,  1898,  shows  the  need  of  the  above 
appeal  when  it  said: 

“That  all  members  of  our  legislature 
ride  free  upon  our  railroads  while  en- 
gaged in  the  performance  of  their 
duties  is  notorious.”  “Of  the  four 
thousand  men,  more  or  less,  who  have 
been  elected  to  our  legislature  within 
twenty  years,  we  venture  to  say  that 
not  ten  have  refused  to  ride  on  a pass.” 

New  Hampshire’s  Abject  Condition. 

The  abject  condition  of  slavery  to 
which  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  have  been  reduced  by  all  the 
foregoing  transactions  was  depicted  by 
me  on  December  30,  1898,  as  follows: 

1.  All  the  railroads  whether  within 
or  without  the  state  may  consolidate 
into  one  corporation  at  their  own  will 
and  pleasure,  and  one  Great  Railroad 
Company  embraces  substantially  all 
our  state  lines  as  a part  of  irresistibly 
powerful  lines  outside  the  state. 

2.  All  railroad  competition  is  abol- 
ished. 

3.  No  new  railroads  can  be  built  un- 
less the  supreme  court  decide  that  the 
public  good  requires  them,  which  it 
never  does. 

4.  Millions  of  watered  railroad  stock 
have  been  issued  and  the  people  are 
taxed  to  pay  dividends  thereon. 

5.  The  power  of  the  railroad  commis- 
sioners to  fix  fares  and  freights  has 
been  practically  destroyed. 

U.  The  expenditure  of  vast  sums  of 
money  in  controlling  legislatures  has 
been  encouraged  by  repealing  a wise 
law  limiting  such  expenditure;  and 

7.  The  right  of  the  railroad  man- 
agers to  give  free  passes  not  only  to 
paupers  but  to  legislators,  public  offl- 


4 


cials  and  all  others;  to  give  them  to 
one  man  and  withhold  them  from  an- 
other, according  to  their  pleasure  or 
caprice,  has  been  affirmed  by  a law 
passed  for  the  express  purpose  of  de- 
luging the  legislature  with  free  passes 
when  railroad  legislation  is  pending; 
all  this  stupendous  revolution  having 
been  accomplished  through  laws  carried 
through  the  legislature  of  New  Hamp- 
shire by  the  pressure  of  railroad  power 
scandalously  and  often  corruptly  ex- 
erted. 

Back  to  1892. 

On  March  4,  1892,  I made  an  earnest 
appeal  to  Messrs.  H.  M.  Putney,  Frank 
N.  Parsons  and  E.  G.  Eastman,  com- 
mittee to  prepare  resolutions  for  the 
state  convention  of  April  27,  1892.  It 
recited  all  the  railroad  evils  existing 
in  the  state  and  concluded  by  urging 
the  adoption  of  a resolution  which  was 
as  follows: 

Resolution  Suggested. 

“Resolved,  That  the  Republican  party 
of  New  Hampshire  is  the  advocate  of 
the  people’s  rights  and  not  the  slave 
of  corporation  power;  that  while  it 
makes  no  war  upon  corporations,  it  in- 
sists that  they  shall  not  become  the 
masters  of  the  state,  but  shall  be  regu- 
lated by,  and  be  obedient  to,  wise  and 
wholesome  laws  enacted  for  their  gov- 
ernment; that  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  demand  the  abolition  of  the 
degrading  system  of  illegal  free  passes 
and  of  the  control  of  the  state  legis- 
lature by  corrupt  railroad  agencies;  the 
revision  of  the  method  of  valuing  rail- 
road property  for  taxation,  an  assess- 
ment of  such  property  at  its  full  and 
complete  value  as  compared  with  other 
property  and  its  taxation  at  the  same 
rate;  the  realization  of  the  value  of 
any  interest  of  the  state  in  any  state 
railroad  and  the  application  of  the 
amount  to  the  payment  of  the  state 
debt;  the  prohibition  of  the  issue  of 
watered  stock  or  unnecessary  stock  in 
any  form  and  of  the  payment  of  ex- 
cessive dividends;  and  the  establish- 
ment of  perfect  equality  of  right  for 
all  the  people  in  the  use  and  enjoy- 
ment of  the  railroads  of  the  state  which 
are  not  wholly  private  property  but 
are  open  public  highways  whereon 
every  citizen  has  the  same  right  as 
any  other  citizen,  so  that  any  favorit- 
ism or  discrimination  is  a wrong  and 
crime  which  should  be  punished  by  the 
severest  laws.” 


It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  move- 
ment went  no  further  than  my  pen.  I 
remember  no  expression  in  its  favor 
from  any  other  human  being.  This 
was  16  years  ago. 

Railroad  Revenge. 

The  natural  and  inevitable  conse- 
quence of  such  a condition  of  slavery 
in  New  Hampshire,  and  my  solitary 
agitation  for  its  destruction,  was  that 
while  I had  been  nominated  for  a 
second  election  to  the  United  States 
senate  on  January  10,  1895,  by  a vote 
in  caucus  of  224  to  59  for  all  others,  I 
was,  on  January  10,  1901,  defeated  for 
a third  election  by  a vote  in  caucus  of 
47  for  me  to  198  for  Mr.  Burnham;  and 
75  for  all  others. 


Chapter  Two,  July  29,  1908. 

It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the 
slavery  of  New  Hampshire  to  free 
passes  issued  by  the  one  railroad  which 
controlled  our  politics  would  go  wholly 
unnoticed,  especially  after  the  dis- 
graceful conduct  of  the  legislature  of 
1897  in  authorizing  free  passes  to  ev- 
erybody who  might  ask  for  them  and 
to  whom  the  railroad  might  choose  to 
give  them;  namely,  to  paupers  and  all 
others.  But  cunning  devices  were  re- 
sorted to  in  order  to  evade  prohibiting 
passes. 

The  Republican  State  Convention 
of  1898. 

To  the  resolutions  committee  of  the 
Republican  state  convention  of  Sep- 
tember 13,  1898  (as  against  a resolution 
demanding  the  destruction  of  free  pass- 
es by  an  act  of  the  legislature)  a dec- 
laration was  presented  asserting  only 
that  the  people  ought  to  be  asked  to 
vote  upon  the  question  of  calling  a 
constitutional  convention  to  act  upon 
abolishing  free  passes  and  upon  any 
other  changes  of  the  organic  law  of  the 
state  which  experience  had  shown  to 
be  advisable  to  make.  It  was  the  rail- 
road trick  to  adopt  no  other  resolution. 
But  Senator  Blair,  being  on  the  reso- 
lutions committee,  told  them  this  reso- 
lution alone  would  be  a farce  and  se- 
cured the  adoption  of  an  additional 
clause  saying: 

“In  the  meantime  we  favor  such  leg- 
islation as  may  properly  anticipate  the 
adoption  of  a constitutional  amendment 
prohibiting  free  passes” 
and  both  declarations  were  adopted  by 
the  convention. 


5 


There  had  been  a discussion  in  the 
state  committee  the  night  before.  Colo- 
nel Scott  of  Peterborough  moved  that 
a committee  be  appointed  to  bring  in 
a list  of  officers  for  the  convention. 
Governor  Busiel  objected.  Joining  him, 
I stated  that  the  Democratic  state  con- 
vention of  August  31st  had  adopted  a 
resolution  saying: 

“We  condemn  the  action  of  the  last 
legislature  in  enacting  a law  legalizing 
free  passes  and  demand  its  repeal.” 

And  I urged  that  the  convention  the 
next  day  ought  to  make  the  same  dec- 
laration; and  I moved  to  amend  Colo- 
nel Scott’s  motion  by  omitting  the 
naming  of  a committee  on  resolutions. 
Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  spoke  in  opposition; 
I called  for  a rising  vote;  Mr.  Jeremiah 
W.  Sanborn  also  spoke  with  Governor 
Busiel  and  myself,  but  our  amendment 
was  voted  down,  248  to  90  and  Colonel 
Scott’s  motion  adopted.  The  prelim- 
i inary  committee  on  resolutions  was  E. 
G.  Eastman,  Henry  B.  Quinby  and 
James  O.  Lyford.  By  the  aid  of  the 
last  two  Mr.  Blair’s  amendment  to  the 
resolution  presented  to  the  convention 
which  demanded  action  by  the  legisla- 
ture against  free  passes  was  made  a 
part  of  the  report  of  the  committee. 
There  was,  however,  debate  in  the  con- 
vention. Governor  Busiel  moved  a 
long  series  of  radical  resolutions  for  re- 
form, including  the  prohibition  of  free 
passes,  which  I sustained.  They  were 
opposed  by  Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  and  Mr. 

: Lyford  and  we  were  voted  down  by  60 
. affirmative  votes  to  overwhelming  neg- 
i ative  votes  not  counted.  I did  not  no- 
. tice  whether  Mr.  Rosecrans  W.  Pills- 

• bury  was  present. 

The  Failure  of  the  Legislature  of  1899. 

f The  legislature  came  and  went  and 
f did  nothing.  All  the  members  had  free 
passes.  Governor  Rollins  in  a long 

• message  made  18  specific  recommenda- 
f-  tions  and  elaborated  the  arguments  in 

• their  favor,  but  said  nothing  against 
spending  money  in  politics,  railroad 

• crimes  or  free  pass  briberies.  There 
were  good  reasons  why  he  did  not.  But 

■ Mr.  Clement  of  Warren,  a Democrat, 
on  January  11th,  introduced  a bill  re- 
pealing the  “paupers  and  others”  act 

• of  1897  and  providing  for  the  transpor- 
5 tation  at  the  expense  of  the  state  of 
i the  members  of  the  legislature  and  oth- 
er state  officers.  It  was  referred  to  the 

'!  judiciary  committee  to  A.  T.  Batchel- 
der,  chairman  and  author  of  the  act  of 


1897,  and  on  February  22nd  it  gave  him 
pleasure  to  report  it  adversely.  The 
language  of  the  report  and  the  subse- 
quent proceedings  should  be  read  in 
full,  as  follows: 

Whereas,  the  railroads  of  the  state 
have  issued  free  passes  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  residing  on  their 
lines  respectively,  during  the  sessions 
thereof  for  more  than  a quarter  of  a 
century  without  condition;  and 

Whereas,  the  present  salary  of  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  was  fixed  by  the 
constitutional  convention  of  1889  and 
ratified  by  the  people,  when  such  free 
transportation  was  furnished;  and 

Whereas,  another  session  of  the  leg- 
islature must  be  held  before  the  con- 
stitution can  be  changed;  and 

Whereas,  a joint  resolution  has 
passed  both  branches  of  the  legisla- 
ture submitting  to  the  people  the  ques- 
tion of  the  advisability  of  holding  a 
constitutional  convention;  therefore 

Resolved,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  leg- 
islate upon  the  question  at  this  time. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the 
question  being  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution, 

[Discussion  ensued.] 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren  moved  that 
the  bill  and  report  be  laid  upon  the  ta- 
ble to  be  printed. 

On  a viva  voce  vote  the  motion  did 
not  prevail. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren  moved  that 
the  bill  and  report  be  laid  upon  the  ta- 
ble and  made  the  special  order  for 
Thursday,  February  23,  at  11:30  o’clock. 

On  a viva  voce  vote  the  motion  did 
not  prevail. 

On  a viva  voce  vote  the  resolution 
was  adopted. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Warren  demanded 
a yea  and  nay  vote. 

The  roll  call  pending,  Mr.  Keyes  of 
Milford  moved  that  the  bill  and  report 
be  recommitted  to  the  committee  on 
the  judiciary. 

On  a viva  voce  vote  the  motion  did 
not  prevail. 

[Discussion  continued.] 

The  roll  was  called  with  the  follow- 
ing result:  Yeas,  292;  nays,  22;  and 
the  resolution  was  adopted. 

During  the  debate  Mr.  Batchelder 
said:  “The  subject  of  free  passes  should 
be  considered  in  a constitutional  con- 
vention.” Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  said:  “The 


6 


matter  should  be  postponed  to  the  con- 
stitutional convention.  In  spite  of  the 
party  declarations  in  favor  of  the  pass- 
age by  this  legislature  of  an  anti-free- 
pass  law,  within  a week  after  the  Dem- 
ocratic state  convention  the  chairman 
and  secretary  of  the  Democratic  state 
committee  called  for  free  passes  and 
got  them.” 

Mr.  Clement,  hostile  to  free  passes, 
predicted  thus:  “When  the  constitu- 
tional convention  is  called,  every  mem- 
ber of  that  convention  will  get  a free 
pass  just  as  the  members  of  the  legis- 
lature do — ” 

And  so  the  legislature  of  1899 — 292  to 
22 — decided  to  keep  and  use  their  free 
passes  and  to  perpetuate  the  system 
of  free  pass  briberies.  Among  the  292 
I notice  the  names  of  Rosecrans  W. 
Pillsbury  and  Daniel  C.  Remich. 

The  Failure  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention. 

This  convention  came  in  1902.  The 
railroad  sent  free  passes  to  every  mem- 
ber. Thereby  the  railroad  candidate, 
being  its  chief  attorney,  was  made 
president,  against  Judge  David  Cross. 
Early  I began  the  fight  for  a declara- 
tion against  free  passes.  But  we  were 
met  with  the  assertion  by  Mr.  E.  F. 
Jones  of  Manchester:  “There  is  no 
proper  place  in  our  constitution  for  any 
measure  of  this  kind.  Action  in  this 
regard  should  be  left  to  the  legislature.” 
Mr.  E.  G.  Leach  said:  “Let  the  legisla- 
ture take  care  of  this.  It  is  not  a 
matter  that  belongs  to  a constitutional 
convention.”  Mr.  DeWitt  C.  Howe 
said:  “This  is  a subject  for  the  legisla- 
ture and  not  for  a constitutional  con- 
vention.” Mr.  Hadley,  of  Temple,  rep- 
resenting the  state  granges,  said:  “I 
do  not  believe  there  is  any  need  of  giv- 
ing the  Boston  and  Maine  railroad  a 
slap  in  the  face  because  they  are  con- 
siderate enough  to  help  out  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  by  giving  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  and  of  this  con- 
vention free  passes.”  In  behalf  of  the 
grange,  Mr  Hadley  also  extended  “the 
sincere  thanks  of  this  organization  to 
the  railroad  in  this  public  manner  for 
their  many  courtesies.” 

Of  course  there  was  thereafter  no 
possibility  of  our  success.  I was  aided 
in  debate  by  Messrs  E.  C.  Hubbard, 
S.  W.  Emery,  J.  C.  A.  Wingate,  E.  C. 
Niles  and  George  I.  McAllister,  and  af- 
ter an  unfair  and  unjust  attempt  by 
the  presiding  officer  to  prevent  a yea 


and  nay  vote  we  obtained  it,  but  were 
defeated  by  221  to  101.  Free  passes  in 
the  pockets  of  the  members  did  the 
deadly  deed.  I notice  among  the  votes 
against  suppressing  free  passes  that  of 
Mr.  R.  W.  Pillsbury. 

The  Failure  of  the  Legislature  of  1903. 

Following  the  constitutional  conven-  . 
tion  of  December,  1902,  the  legislature  | 
meeting  January  7th,  1903,  did  nothing,  j 
The  senate  index  does  not  contain  the 
word  railroad.  It  does  show  this: 
“Passes.  Clerk  instructed  to  procure  I 
from  secretary  of  constitutional  con-  j 
vention  certified  copy  of  resolution  re-  j 
lating  to.”  It  came  and  also  the  resolu- 
tion on  trusts.  On  February  3d  the  ! 
Journal  says:  “On  motion  of  Senator  | 
Page  it  was  voted  that  action  on  the  i 
foregoing  resolutions  be  indefinitely  j 
postponed.”  On  January  21st  the  j 
house  passed  a similar  call  upon  the 
secretary  of  the  constitutional  conven- 
tion which  was  complied  with.  On 
February  10th  Mr.  Small  of  Rochester 
moved  that  the  resolutions  be  referred 
to  the  judiciary  committee.  There  was 
discussion  and  the  record  is  as  follows: 

“Discussion  ensued.  Mr.  French  of  | 
Moultonborough  moved  that  the  resolu- 
tions be  indefinitely  postponed  and  on  I 
a viva  voce  vote  the  motion  prevailed. 
Mr.  Small  of  Rochester  called  for  a 
division.  A division  being  had,  145 
gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative  and 
45  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative,  and 
no  quorum  having  voted,  the  house  j 
stood  adjourned.” 

On  February  11th  the  resolutions  were  | 
indefinitely  postponed— yeas  191,  nays  | 
140. 

Mr.  Winston  Churchill  of  Cornish 
voted  yea. 

Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  of  Littleton  voted 
nay. 

The  Failure  of  the  State  Conven- 
tions of  1904. 

These  state  conventions  of  both  po- 
litical parties  said  nothing  about  rail- 
roads or  free  passes. 

On  September  8,  1904,  I had  made  a 
strenuous  appeal  to  the  three  platform  I 
advisers  and  draftsmen,  Messrs.  F.  D. 
Currier,  Harry  G.  Sargent  and  John  B. 
Gilbert,  repeating  my  arguments  pre- 
viously advanced.  I also  said: 

“The  omission  of  Democratic  conven- 
tions to  continue  to  declare  against 


7 


free  passes  since  the  control  of  that 
party  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Bos- 
ton and  Maine  railroad  and  its  attor- 
ney, Mr.  John  M.  Mitchell,  as  the  Re- 
publican party  has  been  in  the  hands 
of  that  railroad  and  its  attorney,  Mr. 
Streeter,  gives  the  Republicans  this 
year  an  opportunity  to  specially  com- 
mend their  platform  to  the  397,000  fare 
payers  which  I am  confident  you  at 
least  will  not  neglect  to  try  to  take  ad- 
vantage of.” 

I also  called  attention  to  the  popular 
movement  in  Wisconsin  under  Gover- 
nor La  Follette  which  had  secured  “an 
increase  of  taxes  upon  the  railroads  of 
over  $600,000  annually;  and  I predicted 
the  governor’s  re-election^which  came, 
followed  by  his  election  to  the  United 
States  senate. 

Upon  the  committee  I urged  a reso- 
lution as  follows: 

Anti-Free  Pass  Resolution  Proposed. 

The  Republican  party  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, in  its  state  convention  held  Sep- 
tember 13,  1898,  favored  the  calling  of  a 
constitutional  convention  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  abolishing  free  passes, 
and  such  legislation  in  the  meantime  as 
might  properly  anticipate  the  adoption 
of  such  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion. The  constitutional  convention 
which  assembled  in  December,  1902,  be- 
ing of  opinion  that  the  matter  of  free 
passes  was  properly  a legislative  ques- 
tion, referred  the  whole  subject  to  the 
legislature.  The  legislature  of  1903,  ig- 
noring the  expressed  desire  of  the  Re- 
publican party,  failed  to  take  any  ac- 
tion upon  the  subject.  We  now  de- 
mand that  the  next  legislature  pass  an 
act  punishing  by  severe  penalties,  not 
only  the  issuing  of  free  railroad  passes 
to  others  than  persons  regularly  in  the 
employ  and  pay  of  the  railroad  issuing 
such  passes,  or  persons  who  by  reason 
of  poverty  are  unable  to  pay  their 
fares,  but  also  the  receiving  and  use  of 
such  passes  by  any  persons  not  in  the 
exempted  classes,  and  providing  for  the 
keeping,  by  all  railroads  operating  in 
this  state,  of  records,  accessible  at  all 
times  to  all  public  prosecuting  officers 
and  justices  of  the  peace,  containing  a 
detailed  statement  of  all  passes  issued, 
and  the  persons  by  and  to  whom,  and 
the  causes  for  which,  they  are  given. 

The  Failure  of  the  Legislature  of  1905. 

The  senate  index  does  not  contain  the 
word  “railroad”  nor  “passes.”  The 
house  index  does  not  contain  the  word 


“passes”  and  under  “railroads”  we  read 
of  inspectors,  stakes  and  wires  for 
flat  cars,  and  explosives  on  the  tracks— 
but  nothing  more.  Mr.  Winston 
Churchill  was  member  from  Cornish 
and  Mr.  Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury  from 
Londonderry.  All  the  members  of  the 
legislature  were  offered  free  passes. 

The  Reform  Movement  of  1906, 

From  this  disgraceful  record  of  state 
dishonor  relieved  by  the  positive  ac- 
tion prior  to  1902  against  railroad  domi- 
nation of  almost  no  citizen  except 
Governor  Busiel  and  myself,  it  is  a 
pleasure  to  turn  to  the  reform  move- 
ment of  1906.  It  was  largely  due  to  the 
election  of  Theodore  Roosevelt  as  pres- 
ident and  to  the  inauguration  by  him 
of  railroad  reform  in  national  affairs. 

On  July  4,  1906,  thirteen  honorable 
and  influential  citizens  issued  an  ad- 
dress presenting  Mr.  Churchill  as  a 
candidate  for  the  next  Republican  nom- 
ination for  governor.  I had  urged 
Messrs.  Chalmers  and  D.  C.  Remich  to 
originate  a reform  movement  of  some 
kind;  but  I knew  nothing  of  the 
Churchill  movement  until  after  the  ad- 
dress was  issued.  Later  I learned  it 
was  thought  best  not  to  ask  me  to 
sign  the  manifesto  lest  I should  try  to 
use  the  projected  reform  to  aid  a pur- 
pose of  becoming1  again  a candidate  for 
United  States  senator.  Mr.  Niles  and 
Mr.  Churchill,  however,  asked  me  to 
participate  and  I at  once  cordially 
promised  to  support  Mr.  Churchill.  I 
should  not  have  done  so  if  I had  known 
that  he  had  by  letter  promised  to  sup- 
port Mr.  Pillsbury.  The  presentation 
of  Mr.  Churchill  as  it  had  been  made, 
primarily  on  the  platform  of  “Conis- 
ton,”  did  not  seem  to  me  to  be  practi- 
cal politics,  as  it  would  require  the 
voters  at  the  caucuses  to  buy  and  read 
the  nQvel  or  else  have  it  given  to  them, 
which  might  not  be  thought  to  be  a 
legitimate  campaign  expenditure. 
Therefore  I suggested  the  need  of  a 
platform,  and  it  was  prepared — and  as- 
sented to  by  Mr.  Churchill.  Outside  of 
“Coniston”  I do  not  think  I had  read 
or  heard  of  any  public  utterance 
against  the  railroads  from  Mr.  Church- 
ill or  any  of  the  thirteen  signers  to  the 
pronunciamento  in  his  favor — except 
such  as  I have  hitherto  alluded  to  in 
this  paper.  I think  I ought  further 
to  except  Bishop  Niles,  who  had  for 
years  felt  a righteous  indignation  at 
the  domination  of  New  Hampshire's 


8 


political  government  by  the  Concord 
and  Boston  & Maine  railroads,  which 
he  had  expressed  in  various  appropriate 
ways.  But  naturally  he  could  not  have 
been  expected  to  start  a new  party  or- 
ganization alone. 

The  Riseand]Fall  of  the  Lincoln  Club. 

The  new  movement  was  brilliantly 
conducted.  It  is  not  necessary  to  now 
recite  its  history.  If  there  had  been 
cordial  co-operation  between  the 
Churchill  and  Pillsbury  forces,  Mr. 
Churchill  would  have  been  nominated. 
He  would  have  been  nominated  if  Mr. 
Pillsbury  had  not,  when  he  withdrew 
his  own  name,  made  an  impassioned 
appeal  for  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Floyd. 
But  the  Lincoln  club  reform  in  New 
Hampshire  had  become  a power  in  con- 
nection with  Roosevelt  reform  in  the 
nation.  Its  platform  had  been  adopted 
by  the  state  convention  and  its  candi- 
date for  governor  had  almost  over- 
thrown all  three  of  the  other  candi- 
dates and,  although  defeated,  seemed 
to  be  a coming  man  in  our  state  poli- 
tics. The  sequel,  however,  was  most  ' 
absurd.  Prior  to  the  election  the  Lin- 
coln club  officers  had  no  considerable 
membership  besides  themselves.  Their 
supporters,  however,  appeared  at  the 
caucuses  and  conventions  and  after  the 
election  a meeting  was  held  of  various 
gentlemen  with  a view  to  enlarging  and 
perpetuating  the  club  as  a political 
power  for  reform  and  good  government 
and  it  was  decided  to  continue  to  invite 
accessions  of  members  until  a large 
constituency  should  be  obtained. 

Nonsensical  Management  of  the 
Lincoln  Club. 

It  was  also  expected  by  me  that  the 
club  would  continue  to  suggest  candi- 
dates for  other  offices  to  be  filled  in  the 
future,  especially,  as  reform  measures 
were  to  be  asked  from  the  legislature, 
was  it  important  that  there  should  be  a 
reform  candidate  for  speaker — who 
naturally  would  not  be  Mr.  Ellis. 
Furthermore  no  one  seemed  to  doubt 
that  there  should  be  a reform  candidate 
for  United  States  senator  at  the  com- 
ing session,  considering  the  circum- 
stances of  the  nomination  of  the  sena- 
tor in  office.  From  sincere  conviction 
as  to  the  best  course  to  be  pursued  and 
to  relieve  every  one  as  to  my  own 
plans,  I had  in  October  suggested 
Judge  James  W.  Remick,  the  president 


of  the  club,  as  the  best  candidate  for 
senator,  had  urged  him  to  run  and  had 
pledged  myself  to  support  him.  I 
thought  also  that  Mr.  Churchill  should 
continue  to  be  a candidate  and  become 
the  next  governor  in  1908.  A singular 
decision  was,  however  reached.  Our 
whole  contest  for  reform  had  taken 
shape  in  urging  a particular  candidate 
for  an  office — that  of  governor.  Now, 
however,  we  were  told  that  this  was  not 
a wise  method  of  reform;  that  it 
showed  our  selfishness;  that  we  must 
abstain  from  pressing  candidates;  must 
let  Mr.  Ellis  be  speaker  and  Mr.  Burn- 
ham be  re-elected  senator;  and  must 
show  our  unselfish  devotion  by  press- 
ing only  our  principles  and  measures — 
Mr.  Churchill  to  be  the  first  and  last 
Lincoln  Republican  candidate  for  any 
office.  Such  altruism  was  beyond  my 
comprehension.  But  it  worked.  It 
nominated  Mr.  Ellis  and  re-nominated 
Mr.  Burnham.  A member  of  the  club 
became  a candidate  for  United  States 
senator  but  Mr.  Churchill  opposed  and 
excommunicated  him.  The  Lincoln 
club  I have  lost  sight  of.  It  was 
turned  over  to  Governor  McLane  and 
Mr.  Allen  Hollis  and  has  gone  where 
the  woodbine  twineth. 


Chapter  Three,  Aug.  1,  1908. 

No  doubt  emotions  of  indignation 
have  arisen  in  the  minds  of  our  citizens 
who  have  honored  me  by  reading 
Chapters  One  and  Two  of  this  history 
of  railroad  evils  in  New  Hampshire  and 
of  our  incomplete  efforts  for  reform. 
Condemnation  and  denunciation  of  the 
methods  adopted  and  of  the  chief 
authors  of  the  iniquities  have  not  been 
omitted  by  me  in  the  past— even  when 
I have  been  alone  in  the  conflict,  as  I 
have  been  during  nearly  the  whole 
period.  It  was  perilous  to  be  denuncia- 
tory then.  It  is  easy,  safe  and  popu- 
lar to  indulge  in  maledictions  now.  But 
is  such  the  wise  course  in  the  present 
state  and  national  political  campaigns? 
I think  not  and  will  submit  my  reasons. 

I. 

The  Railroad  Managers  Not  Alone 
Blamable. 

It  occurs  to  me  in  review  that  the 
railroads  and  their  servants  were  not 
wholly  to  blame  for  their  taking  pos- 
session of  the  politics  of  the  state. 


9 


Were  not  the  great  body  of  the  citi- 
zens at  fault  for  their  obtuseness,  their 
indifference  and  their  complicity  in 
connection  with  their  subjugation  to 
railroad  power?  Only  one  in  a hundred 
of  the  men  received  the  corrupting  free 
passes.  Why  did  the  ninety-nine  tol- 
erate the  injustice?  Now  the  people 
are  awake.  Are  they  not  to  be  severely 
judged  for  their  apathy  hitherto;  and 
was  it  not  natural  that  the  railroad 
managers  should  be  tempted  by  the 
lack  of  general  opposition  from  the 
free  people  to  seize  with  such  easy 
weapons  as  free  passes  the  political 
government  of  New  Hampshire?  If 
they  now  submit  to  reform  and  attend 
more  strictly  and  quite  willingly  to 
their  legitimate  business,  can  we  • not 
afford  in  the  state  and  presidential  can- 
vass to  moderate  somewhat  our  vio- 
lence in  our  abuse  of  our  late  railroad 
rulers?  For  this  one  time  at  least  I 
propose  to  try  the  experiment. 

II. 

The  Substantial  Progress  of  Reform. 

An  additional  reason  for  moderation 
is  to  be  found  in  the  substantial  prog- 
ress made  in  reform  and  the  all  around 
general  willingness  to  promote  it.  Our 
state  convention  of  1906  adopted  the 
platform  demanded  by  the  Lincoln  club. 
Governor  Floyd  gave  it  his  cordial 
support  both  as  a candidate  and  a pub- 
lic official.  The  legislature  made  efforts 
to  do  its  duty.  Instead  of  an  anti-free 
pass  bill,  however,  the  house  as  its  first 
action  adopted  a bill  in  favor  of  the 
free  passes  which  the  railroad  had  sent 
to  the  members,  But  reason  soon  re- 
sumed its  sway.  An  anti-pass  bill  of 
some  value  became  a law  and  other 
helpful  measures  were  passed.  Today 
there  is  no  objection  to  the  passage  by 
the  next  Republican  convention  of  radi- 
cal resolutions  and  it  is  reasonably  cer- 
tain that  a legislature  will  be  chosen 
which  will  carry  out  the  will  of  an 
emancipated  people. 

Radical  Roosevelt  Reform. 

Above  all  is  the  cause  of  reform  in 
New  Hampshire  made  sure  by  its  pre- 
valence in . national  politics.  The 
Roosevelt  administration  has  been  one 
of  radical  reform  measures;  the  Taft 
convention  has  made  strong  declara- 
tions and  has  taken  no  step  backward. 
For  all  that  reform  has  accomplished 
in  state  and  nation  we  ought  to  be 


thankful.  Let  us  try  the  game  of  har- 
mony until  after  the  coming  election. 
If  then  we  find  we  have  been  deceived 
and  are  to  be  disappointed  it  will  be 
easy  enough  to  resume  violent  methods. 

No  Steam  Roller  Yet  Needed  in 
New  Hampshire. 

The  radical  reform  position  of  the 
Bryan  Democrats  will  help  keep  in  line 
lukewarm  Republicans.  Let  us  win 
another  victory  before  building  and 
propelling  a New  Hampshire  steam 
roller.  Let  that  engine  of  oppression 
be  non-existent  except  as  a national 
machine. 

III. 

Danger  of  Republican  Defeat  in 
the  State. 

The  principal  controlling  reason  with 
me  in  advocating  moderation  and  con- 
ciliation is  the  fear  of  Republican  de- 
feat in  state  and  nation.  It  is  easy, 
but  untrue,  to  say  that  there  is  no 
danger  in  New  Hampshire  and  that 
therefore,  we  may  safely  indulge  in 
vituperation  and  proscription  of  Re- 
publicans. 

Even  our  natural  and  inevitable 
troubles  of  two  years  ago,  growing  out 
of  the  long  hoped  for  but  long  delayed, 
awakening  of  the  people  against  their 
railroad  masters,  reduced  our  majority 
of  15,000  on  congressmen  down  to  a 
minority  of  341  on  governor.  This  year 
we  should  build  up  and  not  continue 
to  destroy.  We  want  the  cordial  sup- 
port and  labors  of  every  Republican. 
We  do  not  need  to  denounce  or  threat- 
en any  Republican,  and  I protest 
against  any  nomination  or  plan  of 
campaign  based  upon  such  principles; 
as  likely  to  bring  to  disaster  even  the 
Republicans  of  a state  reckoned  as  sure 
for  Taft  and  the  other  steam  shovellers 
as  is  New  Hampshire. 

IV. 

Danger  to  the  Taft  Ticket  in  the 
Nation. 

Peace  and  good  behavior  among  the 
Republicans  of  New  Hampshire  are 
also  advocated  by  me  in  the  interest  of 
the  Republican  national  canvass.  An 
abstention  from  quarreling  here  will 
tend  in  some  degree  to  harmony  in 
national  Republican  politics.  There  is 
need  of  this.  I have  participated  more 


10 


or  less  in  thirteen  presidential  contests; 
in  the  two  Grant  campaigns  conducting 
the  work  of  the  national  committee 
and  for  sixteen  years  an  active  member 
thereof.  In  every  one  of  the  contests, 
except  perhaps  in  1900  and  1904,  there 
was  a period  in  the  canvass  when  Re- 
publican defeat  seemed  probable.  In 
1864  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  for  a time 
felt  certain  that  he  was  to  be  beaten 
by  McClellan. 

Majority  Party  Always  in  Danger 

It  should  be  borne  well  in  mind  that 
in  a free  republic  where  one  party  has 
been  long  in  power  there  is  a constant 
tendency  of  the  people,  irrespective  of 
the  real  issues,  to  put  it  out  of  power 
and  give  the  other  party  a chance.  It 
is  possible,  though  not  probable,  that 
such  a wave  of  sentiment  may  sweep 
over  this  country  as  will  elect  Mr. 
Bryan.  What  do  we  in  New  Hamp- 
shire know  of  the  thoughts  that  may 
be  gathering  in  the  minds  of  the  Re- 
publicans of  the  great  West?  Peace 
and  concord  here  will  strengthen  the 
national  ticket  everywhere.  Let  us  not 
allow  them  to  be  trampled  upon  on 
any  pretence,  or  to  gratify  unworthy 
animosities  or  promote  selfish  ends. 

V. 

Who  Shall  Be  Our  Candidate  for 
Governor  ? 

Bearing  all  these  state  and  national 
perils  in  mind,  the  Republicans  of  New 
Hampshire  are  shortly  to  nominate  a 
governor.  Shall  a candidate  be  selected 
representing  bitter  hostility  to  every- 
body who  has  been  in  any  way  respon- 
sible for  the  lamentable  condition  of 
slavery  to  the  railroads  which  I have 
depicted?  Shall  the  canvass  be  one  of 
denunciation  and  ostracism  of  indi- 
vidual Republicans  who  may  have  been 
delinquent  in  times  past  when  rail- 
road evils  should  have  been  suppressed 
in  their  beginnings,  If  this  is  the  plan 
of  the  Republican  party  and  punish- 
ment is  to  be  inflicted  and  revenge 
taken  upon  the  responsible  authors  of 
our  recent  woes,  I am  entitled  to  say 
that  I ought  to  be  the  leader  and  the 
candidate.  I could  not,  like  everybody 
else,  be  reproached  for  complicity  or 
too  prolonged  acquiescence  in  the 
wrongs  for  which  punishment  and  re- 
venge are  to  be  applied.  But  I decline 
the  nomination  once  tendered  me  by 
the  Manchester  Mirror  which  seems  to 


have  abandoned  the  first  friendly  im- 
pulse. We  need  a reformer  with  mod- 
eration and  not  a reformer  with  vio- 
lence. As  the  people  of  the  country 
have  no  latitude  of  choice  in  electing 
a president  but  must  decide  between 
Taft  and  Bryan,  so  the  Republicans  of 
New  Hampshire  apparently  at  this 
time  in  selecting  a candidate  for  gov- 
ernor must  decide  between  Mr.  Quinby 
and  Mr.  Pillsbury.  I have  already  in- 
dicated some  of  the  facts  and  opinions 
which  lead  me  to  prefer  the  former. 

Henry  B.  Quinby. 

Henry  B.  Quinby  is  a gentleman  of 
culture  and  superior  literary  and  in- 
tellectual attainments.  His  character 
for  integrity  and  uprightness  of  life  is 
unimpeachable.  He  is  a life-long  Re- 
publican. Without  indecision  or  any 
concealment  of  views  upon  public  ques- 
tions he  has  no  enemies  in  the  Repub- 
lican party.  That  union,  peace  and 
harmony  in  the  Republican  ranks 
which  I said  are  indispensable  to  full 
victory  would  begin  with  his  nomina- 
tion and  result  in  his  election. 

Quinby  a Reformer. 

But  how  about  his  relations  to  reform, 
it  will  be  asked.  Answer:  He  is  as 
good  a reformer  as  anybody  who  will 
ask  the  question:  On  the  committee 
on  resolutions  in  the  convention  of  1898 
he  favored  the  declaration  for  legisla- 
tion against  free  passes.  In  1906  he 
was  on  the  committee  on  resolutions 
which  adopted  the  reform  platform. 
On  April  21st  he  was  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  resolutions  which  recom- 
mended the  resolution  adopted  pledging 
the  party  to  previous  declarations. 

Quinby  Not  a Railroad  Man. 

It  has  been  charged  that  he  has  been 
dominated  by  the  railroad  because  in 
his  business  of  a foundryman  he  has 
sold  car  wheels  to  the  roads.  If  this 
has  been  wrong  it  ended  two  years  ago. 
It  is  a frivolous  accusation.  He  was 
a candidate  for  United  States  senator 
in  1901,  when  the  railroad  made  a sena- 
tor, and  did  not  adopt  him  but  pro- 
scribed him. 

I notice  that  Mayor  Harry  G.  Sargent 
objects  to  Mr.  Quinby  because  he  says 
the  railroads  are  or  will  be  in  his 
favor.  Mr.  Sargent  knows  whom  the 
railroad  would  prefer  if  it  could  name, 
as  sometimes  heretofore,  the  candidate. 


11 


But  of  course  as  between  Mr.  Quin- 
by  and  Mr.  Pillsbury  it  would  prefer 
the  former;  as  between  Taft,  the  judi- 
cious reformer,  and  Bryan,  the  ex- 
treme reformer,  it  prefers  Mr.  Taft.  Mr. 
Sargent  knows  that  if  he  had  become 
himself  a candidate  for  governor,  as 
he  has  been  urged  to  be,  and  the  issue 
had  come  between  him  and  Pillsbury, 
the  railroad  would  have  preferred  him. 

What  Quinby  Is  Sure  to  Be  and  Do. 

The  railroad  is  not  going  to  inter- 
fere in  nominations  for  governor  and 
other  offices  as  it  did  prior  to  the  or- 
ganization, in  Sargent,  Remick  and 
Niles’  office,  of  the  Lincoln  club  of  1906. 
Mr.  Quinby  is  a reformer  committed 
to  all  the  propositions  announced  by 
the  Republican  state  conventions  of 
September  18,  1906  and  April  21,  1908, 
and  by  the  Republican  national  con- 
vention of  June  16,  1908.  He  will  ad- 
vocate and  try  to  bring  to  fruition  all 
the  principles  which  may  be  adopted  by 
the  Republican  state  convention  of 
September,  1908.  If  he  were  to  see 
that  he  could  not  do  this  he  would  not 
accept  the  nomination  from  that  con- 
vention. He  will  advocate  and  sup- 
port those  principles  courageously,  sin- 
cerely and  without  betrayal  or  eva- 
son.  His  life  long  character,  and  not 
mere  temporary  promises  in  an  ex- 
igency, will  be  to  his  constituents  the 
guarantee  of  his  fidelity.  But  he  will 
under  present  conditions  bitterly  de- 
nounce nobody,  and  will  not  try  to 
punish  anybody  in  the  Republican 
party.  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  sup- 
port him.  I do  not  even  make  qualifi- 
cations, as  Mr.  Churchill  did  when  he 
said  in  1905  to  Mr.  Pillsbury  that  he 
would  support  him  as  against  any- 
body then  in  the  field;  and  afterwards 
went  into  the  field  himself  against  Mr. 
Pillsbury. 

Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury. 

No  harsh  words  against  Mr.  Pills- 
bury will  be  said  by  me  in  this  chap- 
ter. If  I ever  say  anything  severe 
against  him  it  will  be  in  a Chapter 
Four,  if  called  for.  In  some  respects 
I have  admired  him.  He  is  energetic 
and  forceful.  His  great  blunder  in 
1906  was  in  pleading  with  the  state 
convention  after  his  own  withdrawal 
to  nominate  Mr.  Floyd  instead  of  ad- 
vocating Mr.  Churchill.  I have  not 
easily  or  hastily  given  up  the  idea  that 


Mr.  Pillsbury,  anxious  as  he  has  been, 
might  make  himself  the  nominee  for 
governor.  But  I did  abandon  com- 
pletely the  thought  that  this  was  pos- 
sible when  I read  his  announcement  in 
the  Union  of  April  18,  1908,  as  follows: 

“ To  New  Hampshire  Republicans. 

“Some  of  the  Republican  bosses  are 
desperately  seeking  a candidate  for 
the  Republican  gubernatorial  nomina- 
tion whom  they  can  control.  Through 
fraud,  bribery,  corruption  and  ballot 
box  stuffing  in  caucuses — methods 
which  were  carried  into  the  state  con- 
vention— they  gained  a position  of 
vantage  which  resulted  in  the  nomina- 
tion of  their  candidate  in  the  last  cam- 
paign. The  full  story  of  those  dis- 
graceful practices  has  never  been  told 
and  ought  never  to  be  told. 

“But  the  bosses  who  directed  that 
movement  and  THE  MAN  WHO 
PROFITED  BY  THOSE  FRAUDU- 
LENT METHODS,  are  proposing  to 
abandon  party  precedent  and  secure  a 
candidate  of  their  own  whom  they  hope 
to  nominate  BY  THE  SAME  COR- 
RUPT METHODS.  Success  through 
such  practices  ought  not  to  and  can- 
not come  twice  in  succession.  If  tried, 
the  self  respecting  party  members  will 
be  warned  and  will  heed  the  warning.” 

This  Assault  on  Governor  Floyd 
Needless. 

This  ferocious  assault  by  Mr.  Pills- 
bury was  published  by  him  in  huge 
letters  and  astonished  all  men  who 
read  it,  including  those  who  had  been 
inclined  to  support  him  for  governor. 
It  was  entirely  uncalled  for  by  any 
provocation  happening  at  that  time.  It 
was  a most  needless  charge  upon  Gov- 
ernor Floyd — an  attempt  to  put  a 
stigma  upon  him  wholly  without  just 
defense  or  useful  purpose.  Governor 
Floyd  has  persistently  exerted  himself 
to  remove  every  cause  of  criticism  and 
has  enrolled  himself  upon  the  list  of 
New  Hampshire  governors  without 
stain  and  with  credit.  Why  ask  him 
to  support  Mr.  Pillsbury  for  governor 
in  view  of  the  latter's  present  charge 
that  he  was  nominated  by  fraud, 
bribery,  corruption  and  ballot  box 
stuffing— and  that,  as  “the  man  who 
profited  by  those  fraudulent  methods,” 
he  proposes  to  nominate  his  successor 
“by  the  same  corrupt  methods.” 

Whom  the  Gods  wish  to  destroy  they 
first  make  mad. 


12 


The  Pillsbury  Assaults  on  Other 
Republicans. 

It  is  painful  to  see  and  impossible  to 
comprehend  Mr.  Pillsbury’s  present 
other  attacks  upon  individuals — which 
I will  not  now  recite.  If  he  has  given 
up  the  hope  of  the  nomination  and  has 
only  the  purpose  of  using  his  tempor- 
ary control  of  a great  newspaper  to  try 
'vto  dishonor  his  opponents  and  revenge 
himself  upon  them,  his  course  is  in- 
telligible and  not  particularly  harmful. 
But  it  is  incomprehensible  that  the 
Bepublicans  of  New  Hampshire  who 
give  serious  thought  to  the  present 
political  situation  in  state  and  nation 
should  for  a moment  contemplate  mak- 
ing him  our  standard  bearer  in  the 
coming  canvass. 

Does  Pillsbury  Represent  Taft,  Hitch- 
cock and  the  Steam  Roller  ? 

Mr.  Pillsbury,  incited  by  a potent, 
powerful  and  wealthy  coadjutor,  is  as- 
suming to  use  the  Taft-Hitchcock  in- 
fluence in  his  attacks  upon  Senator 
Gallinger,  Mr.  Howard  and  Mr.  Moses 
for  their  votes  in  the  national  conven- 
tion for  Vice  President  Fairbanks.  The 
same  game  was  played  prior  to  the 
state  convention  of  April  21st  which 
chose  delegates  to  Chicago.  The  ven- 
erable Judge  Cross  was  coaxed  into 
leading  the  forlorn  hope;  but  the  con- 
vention by  a demonstration  of  about 
750  to  25  voted  down  preference  reso- 
lutions and  thereby  commanded  its 
delegates  to  vote  at  Chicago  on  June 
16th  according  to  their  judgment  at  the 
time.  For  doing  this  the  three  inde- 
pendent gentlemen  have  been  pursued 
with  violence  and  malignancy  by  Mr. 
Pillsbury  in  the  Union. 

Untrue  Charges  Made  Against  Senator 
Gallinger  and  Others. 

Such  stories  as  these  are  told: 

(1)  That  the  New  England  senators, 
(except  Lodge  and  Frye)  a year  ago 
agreed  to  support  Fairbanks  for  pres- 
ident and  that  Senator  Gallinger  at  the 
April  convention  concealed  the  fact 
that  he  was  not  at  liberty  to  vote  for 
Taft. 

(2)  That  Congressman  Currier  at 
that  state  convention  promised  the  re- 


solutions committee  that  Senator  Gal- 
linger would  vote  for  Taft. 

(3)  That  Mr.  Lucius  Tuttle  made 
Senator  Gallinger  the  candidate  for 
national  committeeman  four  years  ago. 

All  of  these  charges  I know  to  be 
untrue. 

Is  It  to  be  War  or  Peace  Within 
the  Party  ? 

In  conclusion  I remark  that  it  is  not 
a matter  of  no  considerable  importance 
whether  Mr.  Taft  and  Mr.  Hitchcock 
are  advising  these  attacks  by  the  men 
who  claim  to  exclusively  represent 
them  in  New  Hampshire.  It  is  doubt- 
less true  that  no  amount  of  such  at- 
tacks will  take  the  electoral  vote  of 
New  Hampshire  away  from  Taft.  But 
this  is  certain:  that  If  the  same 
methods  were  pursued  by  Mr.  Taft’s 
friends,  and  such  men  as  Mr.  Pillsbury 
thereby  nominated  for  governors  in 
New  York,  Illinois,  Indiana  and  Wis- 
consin, there  would  be  in  every  one 
of  those  states  a plurality  for  the 
Bryan  electors. 

Pillsbury  Committed  to  the  Rail- 
road Merger. 

There  is  one  other  special  point  to 
which  I wish  to  call  public  attention. 
The  fixed  committal  of  any  candidate 
for  governor  to  aid  the  railroad  merger 
whereby  the  New  Hampshire  system 
of  roads  is  to  be  transferred  from 
Boston  control  to  New  York  city  own- 
ership, should  prevent  the  nomination 
of  that  candidate.  It  has  been  all  that 
our  state  could  endure  to  surrender 
our  railroads  to  Boston  and  Mr.  Tuttle. 
But  we  ought  to  help  Boston  and  Mr. 
Tuttle  keep  the  Boston  & Maine  and 
all  its  lines  out  of  Mr.  Mellen’s  con- 
trol. Boston  is  big  enough  and  rich 
enough  to  finance  a Boston  system,  and 
New  Hampshire  should  help  in  the 
work.  We  cannot  undo  many  bad 
things  of  the  past;  we  can  prevent 
many  worse  things  in  the  future.  I 
am  glad  that  Mr.  Quinby  is  not  in  the 
slightest  degree  committed  to  the 
merger;  I regret  that  Mr.  Pillsbury 
is  so  committed, — and  I hope  he  will 
withdraw  his  committal. 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

August  1,  1908. 


SENATORIAL  ELECTION  OF  1901 


Mr.  Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury’s  Confession 


“As  the  holder  of  an  annual  pass  I 
had  observed  and  had  had  personal  ex- 
perience that  more  was  required  than 
indicated  in  the  contract.  One  instance 
of  the  latter  will  illustrate.  Just 
prior  to  the  Republican  senatorial  cau- 
cus in  1901,  LIKE  HUNDREDS  OF 
OTHER  ANNUAL  PASS  HOLDERS, 
I received  a telegram  from  the  late 
Superintendent  John  W.  Sanborn  to 
come  to  Concord  at  once.  The  nature 
of  the  business  was  not  stated.  Upon 
reporting  to  Mr.  Sanborn  in  Room  2 
at  the  Eagle,  he  told  me  I had  been 
sent  for  to  aid  in  the  defeat  of  Senator 
Chandler  for  renomination  and  I was 
specifically  asked  to  make  certain  that 
the  representative  from  Londonderry 
should  act  in  accordance  with  that  de- 
sire. I informed  Mr.  Sanborn  that  the 
caucus  at  which  he  had  been  nomin- 
ated had  thus  instructed  our  member, 
and  I believed  him  a man  of  honor.  I 
was  then  asked  to  do  what  I could  to 
promote  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Burn- 
ham, and  I found  scores  of  other  pass- 
holders,  UNDOUBTEDLY  HUNDREDS 
OF  THEM,  in  no  wise  connected  with 
the  legislature,  were  there  under  sim- 
ilar commands.  Disgusted  I took  the 
first  train  home.” 

Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury. 

Julv  31.  1908. 


Confession  is  good  for  the  soul.  Bet- 
ter late  than  never.  Consider  the  pic- 
ture presented  by  the  present  candi- 
date for  governor;  who  charges  that 
Mr.  Quinby  will,  if  nominated,  be  con- 
trolled by  the  railroad.  Mr.  Quinby 
was  a candidate  for  senator  in  1901  and, 
like  Mr.  Chandler,  was  opposed  and 
defeated  by  the  railroad.  Mark  Mr. 
Pillsbury’s  confession.  He  was  ordered 
to  the  Eagle  Hotel  by  the  railroad.  He 
came  on  an  annual  pass.  He  informed 
Mr.  Sanborn  that  he  had  already  done 
the  railroad’s  work  in  Londonderry. 
He  was  asked  to  do  more  at  Concord. 
Did  he  refuse?  No;  he  waited  around, 
did  what  else  he  could,  the  work  in 
which  he  had  aided  was  thoroughly 
done  by  him  and  hundreds  of  other 


passholders,  and  when  it  was  done  he 
went  home.  That  he  correctly  des- 
cribed what  took  place  is  clear,  al- 
though no  railroad  participator  has 
ever  admitted  the  full  facts  before. 
The  only  new  fact  which  Mr.  Pillsbury 
contributes  is  that  he  went  home  “dis- 
gusted.” Yet  he  continued  for  about 
five  years  more  to  ride  on  a free  pass 
and  to  do  the  work  of  the  railroad. 
When  a member  during  the  session  of 
1905  he  accepted  a pass  and  rode  on  it 
daily  from  Londonderry  to  Concord 
and  back;  but  did  not  draw  his  mileage 
for  the  session — 10  cents  per  mile  for 
68  miles,  $6.80!  That  was  the  session 
which  considered  as  railroad  questions 
only  inspectors,  stakes  and  wires  for 
flat  cars  and  explosives  on  the  tracks. 

Since  my  letter  of  July  29  Mr.  G-eorge 
A.  Worcester  of  Milford  writes  me  as 
follows: 

“Lest  you  might  infer  that  all  virtue 
departed  from  that  body  with  the  pass- 
age of  the  Salem  Race  Track  bill,  I 
would  ask  that  you  look  under  the 
word  ‘mileage.’  You  will  find  that  on 
January  23  Mr.  Eben  M.  Willis  of  Con- 
cord gave  notice  of  a bill  to  provide 
for  the  payment  of  mileage  to  those 
members  who  could  not  conscientiously 
use  the  free  passes  presented  to  them 
by  the  railroad  company.  On  January 
24  the  bill  was  introduced  and  referred 
to  the  committee  on  railroads  and 
there  was  some  support  to  the 
measure;  and  I recall  some  time 
later  they  gave  us  a hearing  at 
which  Winston  Churchill  appeared  and 
that  he  said  he  consigned  the  pass 
sent  him  to  the  waste  basket.  No  re- 
port was  made  on  this  bill  and  it  was 
included  in  the  long  list  indefinitely 
postponed  on  March  10th.” 

Messrs.  Worcester,  Churchill,  Willis 
and  Pillsbury  were  learning  slowly  the 
evils  of  free  passes;  and  two  of  them 
became  so  shocked  that  in  1908  they  be- 
came reform  candidates  for  governor. 
Will  they  please  inform  me  how  many 
and  who  of  the  members  beside  Mr. 
Churchill  rejected  their  free  passes. 
Both  Mr.  Pillsbury  and  Mr.  Churchill 


14 


were  too  busy  getting  through  the 
Salem  Race  Track  bill  to  care  much 
for  anything  else  at  that  session. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  now  says  he  returned 
his  session  pass  for  1897  and  1899. 
Naturally  he  did  not  use  them — as  he 
held  and  used  his  regular  lawyer’s 
pass.  For  that  he  says  he  “acted  for 
the  road  in  several  instances  of  claims 
and  minor  accidents  and  conferring 
with  claim  agents  as  called  upon.” 

I respectfully  ask  for  a list  of  the 
claims  and  minor  accidents  and  a 
statement  of  the  conferences  with 
claim  agents.  The  list  will  not  be  a 
long  one;  and  I am  quite  sure  the  con- 
ferences were  about  politics  and  not 
about  claims.  Politics  were  what  se- 
cured Mr.  Pillsbury  his  retainer  by  a 
free  pass.  Will  he  also  tell  us  whether 


he  received  any  money  besides  the 
pass;  if  so,  when  and  how  much.  I 
reckon  he  received  none. 

The  object  of  this  memorandum  is 
mainly  to  call  attention  to  the  now  ad- 
mitted facts  of  the  senatorial  election 
of  1901,  which,  through  the  fault  of  the 
Lincoln  club  members,  were  repeated 
in  1907.  It  is  not  intended  to  reproach 
Mr.  Pillsbury  or  any  one  else  for  riding 
on  free  passes  prior  to  the  advent  of 
modern  Reform.  Nor  do  I expect  to 
see  righted  the  wrong  done  me  in  1901. 
But  it  is  pertinent  to  pending  questions 
to  say  that  Mr.  Quinby  is  today  as 
good  a reformer  as  Mr.  Pillsbury;  I 
think  he  is  more  reliable.  Certainly 
he  is  more  judicious  and  less  abusive, 
violent  and  revengeful.  Let  us  have 
peace  and  amnesty.  W.  E.  C. 


ROSECRANS  W.  PILLSBURY 


Free  Passes  — July  27,  1908 


Mr.  Pillsbury’s  article  in  the  Union 
refers  to  me  for  proof  that  Mr.  Tuttle 
has  mixed  in  politics  in  New  Hamp- 
shire. I promptly  answer  that  he  has 
and  that  he  is  mistaken  in  his  denial. 
He  is  probably  like  Mr.  Streeter  trying 
to  forget  the  past  and  to  behave  well  in 
the  future.  By  Mr.  Streeter’s  depar- 
ture from  the  railroad  management  of 
politics  in  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Tut- 
tle has  been  able  and  has  tried  to  les- 
sen his  interference  therein.  I do  not 
think  it  wise  to  dare  him  to  come  in 
by  assaults  like  Mr.  Pillsbury’s.  Nev- 
ertheless, I hope  Mr.  Tuttle  will  com- 
ply with  Mr.  Pillsbury’s  demand,  al- 
though ferocious,  to  publish  a list  of 
all  the  free  passes  which  he  is,  even  in 
these  reform  days,  giving  to  citizens 
of  New  Hampshire.  I have  fought  un- 
ceasingly for  the  publicity  of  free 
passes. 

In  the  legislature  of  1881 — twenty- 
seven  years  ago — I endeavored  to  se- 
cure the  passage  of  a law  requiring 
records  of  all  free  passes  to  be  made 


and  kept  open  to  every  stockholder  and 
the  railroad  commissioners. 

On  July  11,  1891,  I made  formal 
complaint  to  the  interstate  commerce 
commission  against  the  Boston  & 
Maine  railroad  for  issuing  illegal  free 
passes  and  at  last  obtained  a decision 
forbidding  them — contained  in  Senate 
Document  No.  63,  55th  Congress,  3d 
session,  January  14,  1899.  It  contains 
lists  of  the  free  pass  riders  and  on 
page  19  is  to  be  found  the  following: 

“W.  S.  Pillsbury,  general,  compli- 
mentary ; R.  W.  Pillsbury,  complimen- 
tary”; and  on  page  29  the  following: 
“W.  S.  Pillsbury,  complimentary ; R. 
W.  Pillsbury,  services.” 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  unwise 
for  the  pot  to  call  the  kettle  black,  and 
in  the  interest  of  peace  and  harmony 
and  Republican  victory  in  the  pending 
canvass  I advise  Mr.  Pillsbury,  treas- 
urer of  the  Manchester  Union,  to  go 
slow. 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

July  27,  1908. 


PLATFORM  REPUBLICANS 


Mr.  Chandler  a “ Sender-In,”  but  He  Asks 

Questions 


The  following  letter  is  of  interest  to 
those  who  follow  current  political  hap- 
penings in  New  Hampshire: 

Concord,  N.  H.,  July  31st,  1908. 
Sherman  E.  Burroughs,  Esq., 

Manchester,  N.  H. 

! Dear  Sir:  In  response  to  the  re- 
quest of  the  Platform  Republicans  is- 
sued July  28th,  Prof.  James  A. 
Tufts,  chairman,  I hereby  send  my 
name  to  you  as  willing  to  do  all  in  my 
power  to  secure  the  election  of  dele- 
gates and  officers  who  can  be  relied 
upon  for  loyal  services  in  renewing  the 
pledges  of  the  platform  of  1906  and 
making  those  pledges  effective  in  legis- 
lation.” I presume  I need  not  trans- 
mit to  you  any  evidence  of  qualifica- 
tions sufficient  to  justify  me  in  send- 
ing in  my  name  and  saying  I am  with 
you — just  as  loyally  as  I sent  in  my 
name  to  the  small  body  of  men  of  two 
years  ago  to  whom  you  allude  being 
the  Lincoln  club,  now  extinct.  I should 
have  been  glad  two  years  ago  and  this 
year  to  have  participated  in  the  first 
movement  for  reform  made  by  the 
Lincoln  club  and  the  Platform  Republi- 
cans; but  I was  intentionally  excluded 
therefrom.  I cheerfully  drafted  a 
platform  for  the  Lincoln  club  and  now 
gladly  send  my  name  to  you,  which 
sending,  as  the  record  now  stands, 
seems  to  be  the  sole  participation  ex- 
pected or  allowed  in  the  deliberations 
of  the  general  committee  of  the  Plat- 
form Republicans. 

That  committee  was  to  consist  of  two 
persons  from  each  county  “which 
should  add  to  its  own  number  as  oc- 
casion might  require.”  I am  ambitious 
not  only  to  send  in  my  name  but  to  be 
a member  of  the  committee.  Please 
inform  me  on  certain  points  which  will 

! enable  me  to  decide  what  the  chances 
may  be  of  my  being  promoted  from  a 
“sender-in”  to  a full-grown  committee- 
man. 

(1)  Who  was  present  at  the  meeting 
when  the  general  committee  was  ap- 
pointed? 


(2)  There  are  already  named  not  20, 
but  29  members  of  the  committee.  How 
many  of  them  before  July  28  had  sig- 
nified their  willingness  to  become  mem- 
bers and  to  join  in  the  appeal  of  the 
Platform  Republicans  which  you  have 
issued?  How  many  and  who  of  the  29 
knew  what  your  purpose,  statement  of 
principles  and  discussion  of  the  merits 
of  candidates  were  to  be? 

(3)  What  is  your  plan  as  to  the  fu- 
ture personnel  and  powers  of  the  or- 
ganization? Is  it  to  remain  a board  of 
trustees  of  29  or  is  it  likely  to  be  in- 
creased? What  are  the  powers  and 
privileges  of  the  29  as  compared  with 
those  of  the  senders-in,  or  do  the  lat- 
ter have  no  power  except  to  contrib- 
bute  to  the  work  of  organization  as 
directed  by  the  29? 

No  material  qualification  would  I 
make  to  the  eight  statements  of  the 
platform  which  you  propose.  But  I do 
make  three  suggestions  and  ask  for  at 
least  two  additions.  (1)  It  is  a fairly 
open  question  whether  the  system  of 
primaries  should  be  so  far  extended  as 
to  destroy  all  political  conventions, 
state  and  national.  (2)  It  should  be 
understood  that  if  the  whole  business 
of  politics  is  to  be  carried  on  through 
primaries  there  must  be  some  method 
of  so  providing  for  the  expense  of  the 
same  that  a poor  man  as  well  as  rich 
men  may  be  able  to  run  for  office.  (3) 
Before  revising  our  tax  laws  it  is  not 
necessary  to  ask  an  opirfion  of  the  su- 
preme court  and  then  have  a constitu- 
tional convention;  and  it  is  not  wise  to 
defer  action  upon  all  questions  of  tax- 
ation until  after  a constitutional  con- 
vention and  a vote  of  the  people  upon 
its  recommendations.  Such  a plan  re- 
minds me  of  the  way  in  which  the  free 
pass  prohibition  was  bandied  about  be- 
tween convention  and  legislature  and 
all  action  prevented. 

In  my  opinion  the  legislature,  under 
the  constitutional  amendment  of  1903, 
the  language  of  which  I gladly  helped 
to  frame  at  the  request  of  Mr.  George 
H.  Moses,  has  ample  power  to  pass  all 


16 


necessary  and  advisable  special  tax 
laws.  It  certainly  can  correct  without 
delay  the  error  in  our  present  railroad 
taxation,  which  was  recently  the  sub- 
ject of  judicial  decision.  “The  hope 
deferred  maketh  the  heart  sick,’”  and  it 
is  unwise  to  postpone  all  tax  legisla- 
tion into  the  dim  future,  as  inadvert- 
ently proposed  by  the  draftsman  of  the 
platform  of  the  general  committee.  I 
do  not  accuse  him  of  any  sinister  pur- 
pose but  the  clause  looks  bad.  I have 
no  doubt  it  is  a delight  to  the  railroad 
managers.  We  should  avoid  every  ap- 
pearance of  evil. 

The  two  additions  to  the  platform 
which  I urge  upon  the  organization  are 
as  follows: 

I. 

A physical  valuation  of  railroads  as  a 
basis  for  fixing  fares  and  freight  rates. 

The  language  used  by  me  in  1906  in 
pressing  the  proposition  upon  the  Lin- 
coln club  reformers  was  this: 

“The  ascertainment  of  the  true  value 
of  the  railroads  within  the  state  which 
shall  aid  in  the  fixing  of  transportation 
rates  without  considering  fictitious  cap- 
italization and  shall  furnish  a just  ba- 
sis for  the  taxation  of  the  railroad 
lines.”  The  club,  however,  insisted  up- 
on striking  out  the  words  “which  shall 
aid  in  the  fixing  of  transportation  rates 
without  considering  fictitious  capitaliz- 
ation.” 

It  is  possible  the  Platform  Republi- 
cans might  prefer  the  language  of  the 
La  Follette  resolution  presented  by 
Congressman  Cooper  to  the  national 
convention  and  voted  down,  which  was 
as  follows: 

“The  enactment  of  a law  requiring 
the  interstate  commerce  commission  to 
make  an  exact  inventory  of  the  physi- 
cal property  of  all  railroads,  such  val- 
uation to  be  made  the  basis  of  just  and 
reasonable  railroad  rates.” 

Certainly  no  reformer  on  the  platform 
committee  can  hesitate  about  urging 
the  adoption  of  a declaration  approved 
by  President  Roosevelt  and  Senator 
LaFollette  for  protecting  the  people 
from  railroad  extortion  in  order  to  pay 
interest  on  dividends  or  bogus  cap- 
italization like  that  by  which  the  cap- 
ital of  the  Concord  railroad  was  in- 
creased from  $1,500,000  to  $3,000,000  with- 
out the  payment  of  one  dollar  for  the 
stock  issued  to  make  the  increase. 

Naturally  the  Lincoln  club  reformers 
of  1906  were  not  so  radical  as  the 
platform  committee  of  1908.  When  I 
presented  in  1906  the  anti-free  pass 


pronouncement  it  prohibited  free  passes 
to  “newspaper  proprietors.”  The  club 
struck  out  those  words  as  they  also 
did  a clause  re-enforcing  “the  power 
of  the  railroad  commissioners  to  con- 
trol passenger  and  freight  rates.”  But 
the  world  moves. 

II. 

Th«re  should  be  a plank  opposing  the 
railroad  merger.  New  Hampshire  has 
allowed  its  system  of  roads  to  be 
seized  by  Boston.  We  should  never  I 
consent  to  have  it  transferred  to  New  j. 
York  city.  The  next  legislature  can 
prevent  this  evil;  and  members  should  j 
be  elected  who  will  fight  the  merger  as  \ 
Boston  is  fighting  it.  This  vital  point  i 
I hope  to  enlarge  upon  hereafter. 
What  do  you  say  to  it? 

Candidates  for  Governor. 

The  platform  proclamation  closed  by  \ 
recommending  “that  at  present  this  ; 
organization  do  not  attempt  to  com-  jj 
mit  itself  definitely  to  any  particular 
gubernatorial  candidate.”  It  is  per- 
haps my  misfortune  that  I had  al- 
ready reached  the  opinion  that  of  the 
candidates  in  the  field  Mr.  Quinby 
would  be  the  best  and  I had  prepared 
for  publication  my  reasons.  Of  the 
three  known  candidates  the  platform 
committee  undertake  to  absolutely  ex- 
clude only  Mr.  Quinby.  I have  read 
with  care  their  thirteen  lines  of  con- 
demnation and  say  to  you  and  to  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire  that  no  one 
of  them  is  true.  All  are  untrue.  If  I were 
not  unwilling  to  imitate  in  a peaceful 
document  the  language  of  the  great- 
est living  reformer,  I would  use  a j 
more  forceful  and  strife-producing 
word.  That  Mr.  Quinby  is  a more  re- 
liable reformer  than  Mr.  Pillsbury  and 
is  seeking  union  and  harmony  while 
Mr.  Pillsbury  is  seeking  discord  and 
revenge  I have  endeavored  elsewhere 
to  show. 

(1)  Hoping  to  hear  from  you 
shortly  in  reply  to  my  questions  and 
(2)  asking  for  notice  of  any  meetings 
that  may  be  lawfully  attended  by 
“senders  in”  and  (3)  desiring  admission 
to  membership  with  the  very  elect— 
the  Twenty-nine  if  I am  deemed  quali- 
fied for  such  distinction;  and  (4)  with 
thanks  for  your  sincere  speech  and 
work  hitherto  for  reform  and  (5)  ad- 
miration for  your  talents  as  a lawyer 
and  orator  I remain 

Truly  yours  for  the  cause, 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 


TRICK  CONDEMNED 


Chandler  Warns  Burroughs  to  Hold  Reform 

Standard  High 


Artifice  of  “Platform  Republicans’’  Will  Cause  Criticism  — “ Sender-In  ’’ 
Wants  to  Know  About  His  Amendments  to  the  Platform  of  Committee 
of  Twenty-Nine. 


Hon.  William  E.  Chandler  has  sent 
a second  communication  to  Sherman  E. 
Burroughs,  Esq.,  of  the  “Platform  Re- 
publicans” committee,  which  is  as 
follows : 

Concord,  August  10,  1908. 

Sherman  E.  Burroughs,  Esq.,  Manches- 
ter, N.  H. 

Mr.  Dear  Mr.  Burroughs:  As  yet  I 
have  received  no  reply  from  you  to  my 
letter  of  July  31st,  by  which,  in  re- 
sponse to  your  invitation,  I became  a 
“sender-in”  of  my  name  to  the  “Plat- 
form Republicans”;  and  asked  admis- 
sion, if  deemed  qualified,  to  membership 
of  the  committee  of  29.  I asked  you 
three  courteous  questions,  to  which  I 
hope  yet  to  have  an  answer. 

There  are  some  other  pending  ques- 
tions about  which  I think  the  public  is 
entitled  to  information  which  you  are 
bound  to  give.  I have  been  led  to  be- 
lieve that  of  the  29  persons  mentioned 
in  your  announcement  as  members  of 
the  committee  there  were  not  present 
the  following:  Messrs.  Faulkner,  John- 
son, Pike,  Bass,  Templeton,  Stevens, 
McDuffee,  Manning,  Burge,  Sanborn, 
Henry,  Martin  and  Hoyt;  indeed,  that 
others  of  the  29  were  absent,  making 
only  eleven  present.  Will  you  not  tell 
me  and  the  public  the  exact  facts? 

The  materiality  of  my  questions  is 
very  evident  in  view  of  the  singular 
appearance  of  the  manifesto  of  the 
“Platform  Republicans”  as  given  to  the 
people  on  July  28th. 

1st.  It  is  signed  by  nobody. 

2d.  It  is  in  two  parts;  (1)  a state- 
ment of  principles;  and  (2)  a conclusion 
headed  “Candidates  for  Governor.” 
This  unequivocally  and  severely  con- 
demns Mr.  Quinby,  professes,  singular- 
ly enough,  not  to  understand  Mr.  Ellis’s 
position,  and  praises  Mr.  Pillsbury. 

Now,  this  second  part  about  candi- 
dates looks  very  much  as  if  it  had  been 


written  in  after  the  platform  had  been 
finished.  Indeed,  I am  quite  sure  that 
Prof.  Tufts,  chairman,  was  not  present 
when  it  was  tacked  on  to  the  address. 
I have  an  honest  doubt  whether  even 
eleven  reformers  participated  in  the 
adoption  of  this  part  No.  2.  Some  have 
repudiated  it.  Will  you  tell  us  the 
exact  facts? 

The  question  thus  raised  is  not  a 
light  one.  We  reformers  are  making 
square  issues  with  the  machine  men 
and  have  been  very  free  in  denouncing 
the  tricky  methods  of  some  of  them. 
Necessarily  we  subject  ourselves  to 
keen  observation.  We  should,  indeed, 
be  scrupulously  careful  not  to  resort 
to  any  of  the  very  artifices  which  we 
are  closely  watching  for  and  boldly 
condemning.  So  I am  anxious  as  “a 
loyal  Republican”  and  a “platform  re- 
former” to  see  our  standard  carried 
high  above  deceitful  trickery — and  here 
I see  an  apparent  artifice  which  should 
either  be  shown  to  be  non-existent  or 
else  humbly  admitted,  with  forgiveness 
asked  for  and  better  future  behavior 
promised.  , 

Even  more  than  I desire  the  explana- 
tions above  sought  for  do  I desire  in- 
formation from  you  as  to  your  disposi- 
tion toward  the  two  additions  to  the 
platform  which  I have  asked  for. 

(1)  Will  the  “Platform  Republicans” 
demand  a physical  valuation  of  the 
railroads  of  the  state — to  be  made  a 
basis  for  the  fixing  of  fares  and 
freights  by  the  new  railroad  commis- 
sion, the  organization  of  which  the  re- 
formers demand? 

This  is  the  great  issue  of  the  future 
as  to  railroads.  If  railroads,  which  are 
worth  only  nine  billions  of  dollars — but 
are  capitalized  at  18  billions,  are  to  be 
allowed  to  tax  the  public  to  pay  in- 
terest on  the  eighteen  billions,  let  us 
say  so.  I am  opposed  to  such  a result. 
Do  not  let  the  “loyal  Republicans”  or 


18 


the  “Platform  Republicans”  shirk  the 
issue,  while  pressing  with  zeal  and 
vehemence  their  eight  propositions  of 
July  29th. 

(2)  Are  the  “Platform  Republicans” 
in  favor — as  the  sole  candidate  for  gov- 
ernor whom  they  praise  has  announced 
himself  in  favor — of  the  merger  of  the 
Boston  & Maine  railroad  and  the  Con- 
cord railroad  into  the  New  York,  New 
Haven  and  Hartford  railroad — with 
headquarters  transferred  from  Boston 
to  New  York  city? 

Against  this  wrong  and  this  injury 
to  New  Hampshire  I have  made  num- 
erous appeals — one  to  Attorney  General 
Bonaparte,  and  one  to  the  public  on 
June  22,  1908.  I send  you  copies  of  the 
last.  Please  consider  them  and  give 
me  and  the  public  a statement  of  the 
position  of  the  “Platform  Reformers” 
on  an  issue  of  vital  importance  to  New 
Hampshire. 

Do  not,  I beseech  you,  take  ground 
in  favor  of  Pillsbury  and  merger  and 
against  Quinby  and  a Boston  system 
of  New  England  railroads. 


Let  me  emphasize  one  other  point 
contained  in  my  letter  to  you  of  July 
31st. 

Delay  in  Reforming  the  Railroad 
Taxes. 

Are  you  opposed  to  the  passage  by 
the  next  legislature  of  a law  excluding 
the  special  savings  bank  taxation  from 
consideration  when  the  railroad  taxes 
are  being  assessed?  Do  you  seriously 
mean  that  our  attitude  on  this  ques- 
tion is  to  do  nothing  until  we  pump 
opinions  on  generalities  from  the 
supreme  court,  obtain  a constitutional 
convention  and  wait  for  the  people  to 
adopt  further  amendments  to  the  con- 
stitution? Will  you  not  satisfy  my 
anxious  mind  on  this  point?  I must 
say  that  I am  in  favor  of  immediate 
legislation  in  January  next.  Must  I 
therefore  withdraw  as  a “sender-in” 
to  the  “Platform  Republicans?” 

Hoping  to  hear  from  you  without 
delay,  I remain,  very  truly  your  friend, 
Wm.  E.  Chandler. 


SUPPLEMENTAL  CHAPTER  FOUR  OF 
RAILROAD  REFORM 


The  course  of  the  Manchester  Union 
in  its  efforts  to  injure  Mr.  Quinby  and 
to  commend  its  treasurer,  Mr.  Pills- 
i bury,  to  the  voters  of  New  Hampshire 
| who  are,  on  September  8th,  to  elect 
delegates  to  the  state  convention  of 
I September  17th,  seems  to  make  it  ad- 
| visable  for  me  to  write  a fourth  chap- 
l ter  in  my  book  on  “Reform,  Ancient, 
Modern  and  Future;”  and  in  this  chap- 
: ter  to  treat'  various  points  which  Mr. 

[ Pillsbury,  through  the  Union,  has  en- 
deavored to  make  seem  plausible. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  makes  irrelevant  com- 
; plaint  that  I have  been  quarrelsome 
and  abusive  in  times  past.  That  I have 
i-  been  engaged  in  earnest  controversies, 
public  and  private,  during  fifty  years 
j of  active  political  life,  is  admitted;  and 
| thereupon  I boldly  make  this  assertion: 

That  I have  never  assailed  any  per- 
son except  either  (1)  for  an  important 
public  purpose  which  justified  the  as- 
sault; or  (2)  in  defense  of  myself  from 
unjust  attacks  which  required  my  ac- 
tion. 

I challenge  denial,  with  specifications, 
of  my  two  propositions  above.  Mr. 
Pillsbury  will  please  bring  on  his 
I specific  charges.  I invite  debate 
thereon. 

It  is  true  that  occasionally  in  a con- 
troversy of  mine,  after  it  had  pro- 
ceeded towards  a climax,  the  public 
forgot  that  I did  not  begin  it,  and  the 
other  party  wished  that  he  had  not, 

| and  cried  out  that  I had  commenced  to 
attack  him. 

Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Attack  on  Governor 
Floyd. 

Looking  over  my  three  chapters  I 
find  no  harsh  word  about  Mr.  Piils- 
bury,  unless  it  be  my  statement  that  he 
i is  pursuing  Governor  Floy  1 with 
“malignancy.”  I cannot  change  that 
word— considering  his  demand  in  1906 
that  the  state  convention  should  nom- 
inate Mr.  Floyd,  which  it  did,  and  his 
present  assertion  that  he  was  nomin- 
ated by  “fraud,  bribery,  corruption  and 
ballot-box  stuffing”  and  is  seeking  to 
name  his  successor  by  “the  same  cor- 
rupt methods.” 


Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Unjustifiable  Epithets. 

The  truth  is  that  Mr.  Pillsbury  is 
wholly  at  fault  for  any  discourteous  re- 
cent utterances  by  any  one.  During  a 
newspaper  discussion  concerning  the 
merits  of  the  merger,  I quoted  Mr. 
Pillsbury’s  words  in  his  letter  an- 
nouncing himself  as  a candidate  for 
governor  as  follows: 

“ In  my  judgment  the  proposed 
merger  of  the  Boston  & Maine  and 
the  New  York,  New  Haven  and  Hart- 
ford railroads  would  be  beneficial  to 
the  industrial  interests  of  the  state.” 

Mr.  Pillsbury’s  reply  on  December  12, 
1907,  was: 

“Hurry  home,  Bill,”  “Sour,  petulant, 
waspish  and  hypercritical,”  “Come, 
Bill,  from  the  haunts  of  your  Ananias 
club,”  “Amoosin’  Cuss,”  “Fifty  Years 
at  the  Public  Crib,”  “Come  Back,  Bill.” 

Mr.  Daniel  C.  Remich. 

It  is  to  be  regretted — considering  his 
real  ability — that  Mr.  Daniel  C.  Remich 
is  such  an  inconsistent  and  abusive 
person.  Two  years  ago  he  wrote  me 
that  he  hoped  I would  be  a candidate* 
for  United  States  senator.  Within  len 
days  thereafter  he  wrote  me  that  be- 
cause I had  condemned  his  brother’s 
action  I had  committed  a wrong  for 
which  he  would  never  forgive  me;  and 
he  never  has.  Jumping  into  contro- 
versies now  pending  he  uses,  in  a letter 
of  July  31  addressed  to  Rosecrans  W. 
Pillsbury,  and  published  in  the  Union 
of  August  3,  language  of  this  sort: 

“George  H.  Moses  is  a vitriolic  har- 
monizer.”  * * * “They  are  resorting 
to  all  kinds  of  ridicule,  billingsgate  and 
vituperation  to  discredit  you  in  the 
minds  of  the  people.”  “A  great  major- 
ity of  the  press  of  the  state”  “sub- 
sidized by  the  Boston  and  Maine  rail- 
road” “If  they  £id  not  rally  to  the  sup- 
port of  their  employer  and  attack  you” 
“like  a pack  of  starving  hyenas  they 
would  lose  the  money  and  passes  that 
they  are  now  receiving.”  “Why  should 
you  be  disconcerted  by  their  clamor?” 
“If  they  * * succeed  in  nominating 

Henry  B.  Quinby  they  will  see  George 
H.  Bingham  * * * or  some  other 


20 


* * * Democrat  of  his  stamp  occupy- 
ing- the  gubernatorial  chair” — and  all 
this  to  the  same  Pillsbury  to  whom  he 
wrote,  on  September  21,  1906,  “Nineteen 
hundred  years  ago  there  lived  a Judas 
Iscariot,  in  Revolutionary  times  we 
had  a Benedict  Arnold,  we  now  have  a 
Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury.” 

The  truth  is  that  Mr.  Remich  and 
Mr.  Pillsbury  are  what  are  called  “im- 
possible creatures”  by  ordinary  men 
endeavoring  to  conduct  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  life  as  sensibly  and  peace- 
ably as  possible.  Each  of  them  really 
thinks  he  could  be  a Theodore  Roose- 
velt if  he  could  get  a good  chance  upon 
the  public  stage,  and  both  of  them 
have  some  of  his  traits — asses  in  lions 
skins. 

Mr.  Winston  Churchill. 

Mr.  Churchill  in  politics  is  a similar 
impossibility.  He  is  not  abusive,  but 
gently  ineffective.  I have  read  all  his 
books  and  am  carried  away  by  his 
romantic  imaginings.  I adore  his 
charming  female  personages  and  for 
the  time  being  live  among  them — Doro- 
thy Manners,  Virginia  Carvel,  Cynthia 
Ware  and  Victoria  Flint — sweet  crea- 
tures all,  bringing  splendid  dowries  to 
their  creator.  The  trouble  with  Mr. 
Churchill  is  that  his  mind  lives  with 
such  women  all  the  time;  and  is  there- 
fore inoperative  in  politics.  If  he  gives 
himself  to  any  work  in  life  except 
writing  love  stories,  he  should  organize 
a band  of'  female  suffragettes. 

Practically:  He  wrote  a letter  in  1905 
to  Mr.  Pillsbury  saying  he  would  sup- 
port him  for  governor  against  any  can- 
didate in  the  field,  and  in  1906  became 
a candidate  himself.  After  election  he 
decided  that  the  reformers  should  not 
have  any  candidate  for  United  States 
senator  if  not  himself  and  so  he  and 
the  railroad  re-elected  Mr.  Burnham. 
In  1907  he  decided  to  withdraw  from 
the  field  and  support  Pillsbury  for  1908; 
and  did  this  without  consulting  any  of 
his  associate  reformers. 

Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Inaccuracies. 

The  Earl  of  Cromer  in  his  recent  ab- 
sorbing book  on  “ModeTn  Egypt”  calls 
attention  to  a remark  of  Sir  Arthur 
Helps  which  is: 

“Half  the  evils  of  the  world  come 
from  INACCURACY.” 

This  truth  is  specially  applicable  to 
the  present  discussion.  To  unfairly 
quote  another  is  a common  fault  of 


controversialists.  Brevity  may  be 
sought,  but  quotation  marks  should 
mean  the  exact  words  used.  Asterisks 
should  call  attention  to  words  deemed 
immaterial.  There  may  be  omissions  in 
paraphrasing  statements — but  the  writ- 
ers are  responsible  for  giving  fairly  the 
facts  or  ideas.  Now  for  some  notable 
violations  of  these  rules: 

The  Hazen  Bill  of  1887. 

The  Union  of  August  6th  condemns 
everybody  who  in  1887  supported  the 
Hazen  bill,  as  Mr.  Quinby  did;  and  re- 
fers to  Governor  Sawyer’s  veto  as 
follows: 

“Within  a month  the  Hazen  bill  had 
passed  and  was  vetoed  by  the  governor 
for  the  reason  that  corrupt  methods 
have  been  extensively  used  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  its  passage,  by 
those  acting  in  the  interests  of  the  Bos- 
ton and  Maine  corporation.” 

The  Union  unfairly  omits  Governor 
Sawyer’s  emphatic  additional  words: 
“It  matters  not  that  both  of  the  parties 
are  probably  equally  guilty.” 

It  is  of  not  much  importance  to  go 
back  to  1887  and  condemn  Mr.  Quinby 
for  supporting  the  Hazen  bill. 

The  exact  issue  was  stated  by  me  in 
a letter  to  Governor  Sawyer  of  October 
3,  1887,  as  follows: 

“Waterloo,  N.  H.,  Oct.  3,  1887. 

“My  Dear  Governor:  * * * I earn- 
estly advised  Governor  Hale  to  veto  the 
bill  of  1883.  It  was  a radical  change  of 
policy,  and  I believed  a bad  change. 
However,  it  was  adopted.  The  right  of 
unlimited  consolidation  was  given  to 
the  railroads  of  the  state,  and  to  the 
railroads  out  of  the  state,  to  be  effected 
according  to  their  own  pleasure,  with- 
out any  further  consent  from  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire.  Four  years  later 
the  question  comes  up,  not  upon  a 
proposition  to  repeal  the  act  of  1883, 
reverse  the  policy  then  adopted  and 
revert  to  the  original  one,  but  upon  two 
propositions, — First  (1),  that  of  the 
Hazen  bill  to  provide  a method  for 
buying  out  dissenting  stockholders  In 
case  of  ninety-nine  year  leases  (made 
necessary  by  a decision  of  the  supreme 
court)  and  to  declare  that  the  Boston 
& Lowell  railroad  was  included  within 
the  language  of  the  act  of  1883.  Second 
(2),  that  of  the  Atherton  bill,  which 
seeks  to  force  a union  of  the  Concord 
and  the  Montreal  roads,  destroying  the 
prior  lease  to  the  Lowell,  and  indirect- 


21 


ly  to  take  the  Northern  railway  away 
from  the  Lowell  and  give  it  to  the 
Concord.” 

Upon  the  question  thus  arising  hon- 
est men  might  fairly  differ.  I never 
satisfied  myself  that  there  had  been 
actual  corruption  sufficient  to  justify. 
Governor  Sawyer’s  veto  on  that 
ground.  The  mischief  had  been  done  by 
the  Colby  act  of  1883,  which  I advised 
Governor  Hale  to  veto.  At  his  request 
I drew  up  a veto  message  which,  how- 
ever, he  was  prevailed  upon  to  with- 
hold. It  is  interesting  reading  today 
because  it  foreshadows  the  evils  to 
come  from  unlimited  consolidation. 
Even  the  defeat  of  the  bill  of  1887  only 
resulted  in  the  consolidation  and  the 
stockwatering  legislation  of  1889.  It 
does  seem  that  in  1887  Mr.  Quinby, 
while  supporting  the  Hazen  bill,  pre- 
pared and  carried  through  the  legisla- 
ture certain  provisions  for  two -cent 
fares  and  mileage  tickets  and  against 
the  raising  of  rates,  which  meritorious 
measures  Governor  Sawyer  vetoed 
with  the  rest. 

Mr.  Tuttle  and  Senator  Gallinger, 

Mr.  Pillsbury  does  not  fairly  state 
the  question  concerning  Mr.  Tuttle’s 
connection  with  Senator  Gallin- 
ger’s  candidacy  for  the  conven- 
tion and  the  national  committee 
in  1904.  His  charge  was  that  Mr. 
Tuttle  originated  the  candidacy  and 
made  Gallinger  the  candidate  of  his- 
corporation.  The  truth  clearly  appears 
that  Senator  Gallinger’s  decision  arose 
from  the  earnest  insistence  of  Presi- 
dent Roosevelt,  Senator  Burnham  and 
myself — brought  to  bear  before  Mr. 
Tuttle  knew  anything  about  the  plan. 
Senator  Burnham  went  to  Mr.  Tuttle 
to  induce  him  to  prevent  his  attorney, 
Mr.  Streeter,  from  using  railroad 
power  and  passes  in  his  own  behalf 
and  against  Senator  Gallinger, — and 
Mr.  Tuttle  promptly  acted,  adding  an 
expression  of  his  own  preference  that 
Senator  Gallinger  should  be  delegate 
and  committeeman. 

The  whole  point  of  Mr.  Pillsbury’s 
present  attack  upon  Senator  Gallinger 
as  being  ordered  into  the  place  by  Mr. 
Tuttle  falls  to  the  ground  in  the  light 
of  the  above  impregnable  facts. 

At  that  time  I thought  Mr.  Tuttle 
was  false  to  his  assurance  to  Senator 
Burnham  and  that  he  connived  at  Mr. 
Streeter’s  seizure,  through  Pillsbury  and 
Remich,  of  the  committee  place.  It  is 


probable,  however,  that  Mr.  Streeter 
thought  that  Mr.  Tuttle,  who  had  gone 
abroad  in  ill  health,  would  never  re- 
turn to  the  management  of  the  railroad 
and  therefore  ventured  to  use  railroad 
power  to  defeat  Gallinger  and  seize  the 
committee  membership. 

Mr.  Tuttle,  upon  his  return,  failed  to 
act  with  vigor  in  reference  to  Mr. 
Streeter.  If  he  had  begun  to  realize 
the  extent  of  Mr.  Streeter’s  misuse  of 
railroad  passes  and  power  and  deter- 
mined to  terminate  his  connection 
with  the  road,  he  omitted  then  to 
make  his  decision  known. 

Mr.  Tuttle’s  recommendation  of  Mr. 
Streeter  for  national  committeeman 
in  1902  has  little  to  do  with  the  case. 
Our  executive  committee  of  the  state 
committee  had  foolishly  recommended 
Mr.  Streeter  to  Mr.  Hanna;  there  was 
no  known  opposition  to  the  appoint- 
ment, and  Mr.  Tuttle  naturally  gave 
Mr.  Streeter  a recommendation.  Two 
years  later  he  tried  in  vain  to  prevent 
Mr.  Streeter  from  defeating  Senator 
Gallinger;  but  he  did  not  originate  the 
Gallinger  candidacy,  which  was  the  in- 
accurate charge  with  which  Mr.  Pills- 
bury began  his  assault  upon  the  sena- 
tor as  being  the  agent  and  creature  of 
Mr.  Tuttle. 

Mr.  Streeter’s  Confession  and  Retire- 
ment as  Chief  Pass  Distributor. 

The  real  question  as  to  Mr.  Streeter 
is  not  whether  he  actually  wrote  his 
letter  of  October  29,  1906,  to  Mr.  Tuttle 
setting  out  the  wickedness  of  the  rail- 
road and  its  agents  for  the  last  twenty 
years  in  which  he  had  participated 
always  as  a potent  worker,  and  during 
the  few  years  previous  to  1904  as  the 
One  Great  New  Hampshire  Manager  of 
railroad  politics — and  declining  to  con- 
tinue longer  as  counsel  for  the  road. 

No  doubt  he  wrote  the  letter.  But, 
(1)  had  it  not  been  previously  deter- 
mined by  Mr.  Tuttle  that  Mr.  Streeter’s 
position  as  chief  counsel  and  manager 
in  politics  should  cease;  and  (2)  did 
Mr.  Streeter  know  this,  so  that  his  let- 
ter was  only  an  attempt  to  make  a 
false  record?  Upon  this  point  I wait 
to  know  whether  Mr.  Tuttle  will  take 
notice  of  Mr.  Streeter’s  bold  challenge. 

Meantime  I ask  Mr.  Streeter  to  en- 
lighten the  public  on  these  points:  (1) 
What  measure  or  position  of  the  rail- 
road in  all  these  years  did  he  disap- 
prove or  dissent  from?  (2)  What  free 
passes  has  he  personally  distributed  or 


22 


caused  to  be  given  away?  When  he 
gave  them  he  kept  a list  in  order  to 
know  what  servants  to  call  upon.  (3) 
Did  lie  give  to  Mr.  Pillsbury  the  pass 
on  account  of  which  he  came  to  Con- 
cord in  January,  1901,  and  helped  Mr. 
Streeter  work  to  elect  Senator  Burn- 
ham? Mr.  Pillsbury  is  now  loudly  call- 
ing upon  Mr.  Tuttle  for  lists  of  passes. 
I call  upon  Mr.  Streeter  for  his  lists. 

Mr.  E.  C.  Niles. 

Mr.  E.  C.  Niles  has  written  a letter, 
dated  August  3,  which  in  sweet  rea- 
sonableness is  in  refreshing  contrast  to 
the  caustic  utterances  of  his  coadjut- 
ors, Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  and  Mr.  Pills- 
bury. If  Mr.  Niles  wrote  the  anti-free 
pass  resolution  proposed  by  me  to 
Messrs.  Currier,  Sargent  and  Gilbert  in 
my  letter  of  September  8th,  1904,  I do 
not  remember  the  fact.  I should  like  to 
be  convinced  and  give  Mr.  Niles  credit 
for  it,  in  addition  to  the  other  good 
work  he  has  done  for  railroad  reform. 
If  there  were  more  self-assertion  on  the 
part  of  genuine  reformers  like  Mr. 
Niles  and  Mr.  Cook  there  would  be  less 
arrogance  on  the  part  of  bogus  reform- 
ers like  Mr.  Pillsbury  and  Mr.  D.  C. 
Remich. 

Mr.  Niles  says  that  when  Mr.  Sar- 
gent, because  it  would  be  useless,  de- 
cided not  to  carry  a free-pass  fight  into 
the  convention  of  1904,  “in  this  de- 
termination Mr.  Chandler  concurred.” 
This  is  inaccurate.  I never  agreed  that 
it  would  be  a useless  fight.  Mr.  Sar- 
gent decided  that  it  would  be  impolitic, 
in  view  of  the  urgings  against  his 
bringing  on  the  fight  as  one  member  of 
three  of  the  committee.  I defined  my 
attitude  with  the  utmost  care:  that  I 
should  make  the  fight  in  the  conven- 
tion if  any  one  man  would  agree  to 
make  it  with  me;  that  I would  not 
make  it  alone;  and  that  I should  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  criticize  him  if 
he  did  not  then  make  a contest. 

Mr.  Niles  says  I am  making  an  at- 
tack on  Mr.  Pillsbury.  Here  is  more 
inaccuracy.  I made  no  attack.  Mr. 
Pillsbury  attacked  me  and  Mr.  Quinby, 
in  intemperate  and  unpermissible  lan- 
guage, and  I make  defense  in  permiss- 
ible language.  Mr.  Niles  quotes  from 
a paper  of  mine  in  1904  the  following: 

“It  is  not  intended  to  exclude  from 
participation  in  setting  things  right 
any  one  who  hitherto,  in  accordance 
with  the  wrong  custom  now  become  in- 
tolerably enlarged,  may  have  himself 
sometimes  used  free  transportation.  It 


is  sufficient,  if  now  seeing  the  evil  to 
be  over  grown  and  pernicious,  he 
thinks  the  time  has  come  for  all  men  to 
pay  their  fares  and  is  willing  to  do  his 
part  to  bring  about  the  coming  re- 
form.” 

Mr.  Niles  adds:  “That  was  good  doc- 
trine then,  and  it  is  good  doctrine 
now.”  Most  heartily  do  I agree  to  this. 
But  who  begun  violence  this  time?  Mr. 
Pillsbury  and  Mr.  D.  C.  Remich  are 
hardly  responsible  human  beings.  Mr. 
Niles,  who  begun  it?  Sustain  your 
charge.  Quote  the  words.  Was  it  a 
crime  to  prefer  some  other  nominee  for 
president  than  Mr.  Taft?  Is  it  a crime 
to  prefer  Quinby  to  Pillsbury?  Hence 
these  tears! 

Is  Present  Moderation  a Crime  ? 

Indeed,  the  gravamen  of  Mr.  Pills- 
bury’s  attack  on  me,  not  my  attack 
upon  him,  is  that  at  times  I hav3  used 
harsh  langurge  towards  individuals 
and  corporations  which  I do  no,;  keep 
on  using.  That  seems  to  be  the  com- 
plaint of  various  reformers.  W'ed,  let 
that  be  the  issue.  There  is  a time  for 
all  things.  “To  everything  there  is  a 
season,  and  a time  to  e/er^  purpose 
under  the  Heaven  * * * a time  to 

kill  and  a time  to  heal  * * * a time 
of  war  and  a time  of  peace.” — Eccl.  iii. 

When  I was  alone,  with  seemingly  all 
the  statesmen,  their  pockets  full  of  free 
passes,  against  me,  it  doubtless  was  a 
time  for  strong  language.  At  all  events, 
* I shall  not  acknowledge  the  right  of 
Reformer  Pillsbury,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Reformer  Streeter,  to  order  my 
attacks  upon  the  railroad  managers  or 
the  malefactors  of  great  wealth. 

From  25  years’  experience  I know 
when  to  do  it  and  how  to  do  it  better 
than  they  who  have  had  no  practice — 
except  within  the  last  few  months — 
and  who  have  all  the  indiscreet  zeal 
and  unbecoming  vehemence  of  new 
and  suspected  converts  who  have  been 
criminals  themselves. 

The  Nation  of  August  6,  in  an  article 
on  “Statesmanship  and  Naval  Rivalry,” 
says:  “One  writer  like  Park  Benjamin 
may  insist  that  a fleet  of  12  battle- 
ships on  either  coast  is  an  adequate 
navy  for  the  United  States,  but  forth- 
with he  is  dubbed  A TRAITOR  for  not 
saying  16  or  20.” 

Certainly  no  man  who  is  (1)  in  favor 
of  postponing  the  correction  of  our  tax 
laws  until  after  a constitutional 
amendment  has  been  proposed  by  a 
convention  called  by  the  people,  elected 


23 


by  the  people,  and  approved  at  another 
election  by  the  people,  (2)  who  is 
against  a physical  valuation  of  the 
railroads  as  a basis  for  fixing  fares 
and  freights,  and  (3)  who  is  in  favor 
of  merging  the  Maine,  New  Hampshire 
and  Massachusetts  railroads  into  the 
New  York,  New  Haven  & Hartford 
corporation  should  be  permitted  to  re- 
proach me  either  for  too  great  modera- 
tion or  too  great  violence. 

Mr.  Tuttle  and  Mr.  Chandler. 

A woeful  inaccuracy  of  Mr.  Pills- 
bury’s  is  to  charge  that  Mr.  Chandler 
has  declared  that  “We  ought  to  help 
Boston  and  Mr.  Tuttle,”  his  reason  be- 
ing the  above  eight  words  given  alone 
from  a sentence  of  mine,  the  whole  of 
which  was  this: 

“It  has  been  all  that  our  state  could 
endure  to  surrender  our  railroads  to 
Boston  and  Mr.  Tuttle.  But  we  ought 
to  help  Boston  and  Mr.  Tuttle  keep 
the  Boston  & Maine  and  all  its  lines 
out  of  Mr.  Mellen’s  control.  Boston  is 
big  enough  and  rich  enough  to  finance 
a Boston  system,  and  New  Hampshire 
should  help  in  the  work.  We  cannot 
undo  many  bad  things  of  the  past.  We 
can  prevent  many  worse  things  in  the 
future.” 

Mr.  Mellen  is  now  quoted  as  saying 
to  the  New  York  city  underground 
railroads  that  if  they  do  not  give  him 
the  facilities  he  desires  he  will  build  a 
subway  of  his  own  through  the  city. 
Mr.  Mellen  has  already  built  a subway 
from  New  York  to  New  Hampshire.  I 
can  see  this  end  of  it,  with  Mr.  Pills- 
bury  peering  out  and  Mr.  Streeter  look- 
ing over  his  shoulder  for  a dark 
moment  in  which  to  come  home.  I 
wonder  how  much  they  brought  back 
with  them! 

If  I have  to  choose  betweeen  two 
despots,  I prefer  the  nearest  one,  so  I 
can  the  more  easily  hit  him.  But 
there  are  no  relations  whatever  be- 
tween me  and  Mr.  Tuttle.  I have  no 
sympathy  with  him  for  his  past  mis- 
deeds. It  is  the  irony  of  fate  that  his 
two  former  slaves,  Pillsbury  and 
Streeter,  whom  he  relentlessly  used  to 
destroy  me  in  1901,  should  now  turn  to 
rend  him  to  pieces.  I always  take  an 
interest  when  I see  a bear  fighting  with 
his  own  cubs. 


Mr.  Pillsbury  and  the  Amoskeag  Cor- 
poration. 

Mr.  Pillsbury,  on  August  15th,  added 
another  of  the  reforms  of  which  he  must 
assume  to  be  the  greatest  and  almost 
sole  leader;  that  of  the  Amoskeag 
corporation,  which  he  virulently  as- 
sails for  being,  as  he  says,  hostile  to 
him,  and  he  is  even  reckless  enough 
to  assert  that  Mr.  W.  Parker  Straw  has 
said  that  “the  Amoskeag  proposed  to 
have  delegates  whom  it  could  vote  for 
whomsoever  it  thought  best  at  conven- 
tion time.”  So  now  the  inaccurate  Mr. 
Pillsbury  will  claim  that  everybody 
who  does  not  prefer  him  to  Mr.  Quinby 
is  a tool  of  the  Boston  & Maine  and 
the  Amoskeag  corporation!  It  cannot 
be  that  the  astute  Sherman  E.  Bur- 
roughs is  Mr.  Pillsbury’s  manager! 

Republican  Danger  and  Duty  in  State 
and  Nation. 

My  principal  reason  for  practicing 
moderation  in  the  present  canvass  is 
what  I have  already  carefully  stated: 
(1)  The  danger  of  Republican  defeat  in 
the  state;  and  (2)  the  danger  of  like 
defeat  in  the  nation.  Anyone  who,  in 
August,  presumes  much  on  success  in 
November,  is  an  unwise  politician. 
Between  the  methods  of  Pillsbury, 
Remich  and  Streeter  on  the  one  side 
and  Quinby,  Goodell  and  Gallinger  on 
the  other,  it  should  be  easy  for  wise 
and  sane  Republicans  to  make  a 
choice.  To  say  that  Mr.  Quinby  and 
his  supporters  are  any  more  likely  to 
betray  the  reform  platform,  which  will 
be  framed  without  serious  opposition — 
open  or  secret — at  the  coming  conven- 
tion, is  a charge  deserving  of  the 
strongest  reprobation  which,  according 
to  either  the  Pillsbury  rule  or  the  Niles 
rule,  I could  be  allowed  to  make. 

The  Republicans  of  New  Hampshire 
will  have  no  difficulty  in  determining 
which  of  the  above  trios  will  take  “re- 
tainers” from  Mr  .Mellen  when  he,  at 
the  time  planned,  carrying  bags  of 
gold,  emerges  from  the  New  Hamp- 
shire end  of  the  subway  already  pro- 
vided between  the  New  York,  New 
Haven  & Hartford  railroad  and  Mr. 
Pillsbury  and  his  supporters.  Prudent 
Republicans  will  be  careful  what  load 
the  party  shall  bear  in  this  presi- 
dential year.  Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

August  17,  1908. 


THE  MERGER 


Letter  from  Mr.  Chandler  to  Attorney-Gen- 
eral Bonaparte  of  December  5,  1907,  in  Ar- 
ticle in  New  England  Magazine  for  May, 
1908 


For  Massachusetts  to  allow  the  mer- 
ger would  be  extreme  folly.  It  will 
utterly  destroy  all  railroad  competition 
within  New  England  and  between  Bos- 
ton and  the  West,  and  transfer  the 
present  railroad  power  of  Boston  to 
New  York  City.  Mr.  Mellen  avowed 
that  he  desired  to  acquire  the  Boston 
& Maine  system  that  it  might  not  get 
into  unfriendly  hands ; that  is,  in  or- 
der that  there  should  not  be  from  Bos- 
ton to  the  West  any  competition  by 
way  of  Albany  and  the  New  York  Cen- 
tral lines,  with  the  New  Haven  line 
through  New  York  City  and  the  Penn- 
sylvania system.  Does  Boston  wish  to 
help  on  this  plan?  If  not,  it  should 
stop  the  merger.  On  December  5, 
1907,  I called  the  subject  to  the  atten- 
tion of  Attorney-General  Bonaparte — 
part  of  my  letter  being  as  follows: 

“The  Boston  & Maine  company  has 
lines  extending  from  Boston  west  to 
Northampton  on  the  Connecticut  river, 
which  are  north  of  the  New  York  & 
New  Haven  lines  and  parallel  thereto. 
It  has  lines  further  north,  going  west 
by  the  Hoosac  tunnel  across  the  Hud- 
son river  and  joining  the  New  York 
Central  lines  at  Rotterdam  Junction, 
N.  Y.  At  Albany  this  line  connects 
with  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  lines, 
by  which  comes  east  coal  from  the 
mines  of  Pennsylvania.  By  the  West 
Shore  road  the  Boston  & Maine  has 
friendly  connection  with  Jersey  City. 
The  result  is  that  the  Boston  & Maine 
and  its  allies  can  compete  with  the 
New  York  & New  Haven  road  for  a 
large  miscellaneous  business  between 
the  Hudson  river  and  Massachusetts. 
Moreover,  it  is  in  a position  to  ac- 
tively compete  with  the  New  York  & 
New  Haven  in  transporting  coal  not 
only  to  central  and  northern  Massa- 
chusetts, but  also  to  Vermont,  New 
Plampshire  and  Maine.  Undoubtedly 
the  principal  object  of  the  New  York, 


New  Haven  & Hartford  company  is  to 
stifle  this  competition  in  coal  trans- 
portation. Its  lines,  including  the  New 
York,  Ontario  and  Western,  are  con- 
tinuous from  Boston  to  Scranton,  Penn- 
sylvania. It  controls  water  lines  from 
New  York  toward  Boston.  It  is  un- 
questionably its  purpose  to  monopolize 
the  traffic  in  coal  from  the  great  coal 
regions  to  New  England. 

“All  these  facts  appear  very  clearly 
from  the  records  of  the  government. 
The  attempt  of  the  New  York  & New 
Haven  to  so  control  the  Boston  & 
Maine  by  purchasing  its  securities  as 
to  accomplish  a restraint  of  trade  and 
transportation  is  so  plain  that  I cannot 
doubt  that  the  department  of  justice 
will  take  steps  to  prevent  the  consum- 
mation of  the  illegality  which  is  in 
progress  in  order  to  destroy  the  last 
vestige  of  railroad  competition  in  New 
England. 

Very  respectfully, 

Wm.  E.  Chandler.” 

On  December  10  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral replied  that  he  had  forwarded  my 
letter  to  U.  S.  Attorney  French  at  Bos- 
ton for  “careful  consideration.”  But 
the  Department  of  Justice  is  not  likely 
to  reach  a conclusion  prior  to  June 
16th. 

The  only  reason  of  any  importance 
that  I have  seen  for  allowing  the  New 
Haven  road  to  seize  the  Boston  & 
Maine  is  that  the  New  Haven  is  better 
able  to  borrow  the  money  with  which 
to  make  needed  improvements  to  the 
Boston  & Maine  lines.  The  mistake  in 
such  a notion  is  clearly  exposed  by  Mr. 
Brandeis  in  his  elaborate  and  con- 
vincing statement  of  December,  1907. 
It  is  weakness  inconceivable  for  Bos- 
ton to  admit  that  she  cannot  finance 
her  own  system  of  roads,  but  must  go 
to  New  York  for  the  money.  Boston 


25 


can  do  it  twice  over  with  her  own 
capital. 

It  has  been  distasteful  enough  to  the 
people  of  Maine  and  New  Hampshire 
to  surrender  all  their  railroad  lines  to 
the  powers  at  Boston.  To  now  see 
Boston  transfer  those  lines  and  all  the 
Massachusetts  lines  to  the  New  Haven 
road  so  that  if  a New  Englander  wishes 
to  seek  its  managers  he  must  travel  to 
New  York  or  Philadelphia  would  be 
intolerable.  Will  Boston  deliver  itself 
to  such  slavery?  Must  New  England 
meekly  submit  to  such  a blow? 

Governor  Guild  well  said  in  his  mes- 
sage of  January  2: 

“I  believe  it  is  worth  trying  by  new 
legislation  not  merely  to  escape  the  sur- 


render of  the  relics  of  New  England 
control  which  we  at  present  possess, 
but  to  recover  the  control  that  we  have 
already  lost,  that  not  merely  New  Eng- 
land legislatures  but  New  England  rail- 
roads may  strike  at  the  shackles  about 
New  England  commerce,  and  stimulate 
New  England  industry.  . . . Nor 

is  this  Massachusetts  of  ours  unworthy 
the  Massachusetts  of  Andrew  and  Sum- 
ner, of  Hancock  and  Adams,  of  Endi- 
cott  and  Winthrop. 

“Let  us  strive  to  be  worthy  of  the 
ideals  of  our  forefathers  in  past  cen- 
turies. Let  us  be  not  less  worthy  the 
achievements  of  our  brothers  of  to- 
day.” 

W.  E.  Chandler. 


AN  APPEAL 


For  a Boston  and  New  Hampshire  Railroad 
System  and  Against  a New  Haven  and  New 
York  System 


While  the  Republicans  of  New 
Hampshire  are  considering  the  outcome 
of  their  national  convention  and  the 
Democrats  are  waiting  for  the  program 
of  theirs,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  both 
parties  will  decide  to  oppose  the  trans- 
fer of  the  railroads  of  our  state  into 
New  York  ownership  and  control. 

The  Boston  & Maine  now  owns  and 
manages  from  Boston  nearly  all  the 
railroads  of  Maine  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, as  well  as  important  lines  in 
Vermont.  It  also  operates  two  lines 
across  Central  and  Northern  Massachu- 
setts to  the  Hudson  river  and  is  a 
competing  railroad  from  all  these  re- 
gions and  Boston  across  the  Hudson 
to  the  Pennsylvania  coal  fields  and  to 
Central  and  Northern  New  York  and 
the  great  West. 

Nearly  all  the  business  carried  as 
above  is  done  in  direct  competition 
with  the  New  York,  New  Haven  and 
Hartford  east  and  west  lines.  The 
power  of.  controlling  these  Boston  & 
Maine  roads  is  of  vast  benefit  to  the 
city  and  harbor  of  Boston.  Shall  it  be 
deliberately  delivered  to  New  York  city 
and  used  through  favoritism  to  dis- 
criminate against  Boston  and  its  trib- 
utary country ; to  build  up  the  pros- 
perity of  New  York  at  the  expense  of 
Boston  and  New  Hampshire  and 
Maine? 

The  Massachusetts  legislature  has 
lately  said  NO  to  the  demands  of  New 
York  city — which  has  illegally  pur- 
chased Boston  & Maine  railroad  stock 
enough  to  control  that  corporation.  At- 
torney-General Bonaparte  and  U.  S. 
District  Attorney  French  of  Boston 
have  also  said  NO,  and  have  begun  le- 
gal proceedings  to  destroy  the  conspir- 
acy. What  is  further  needed  is  a pop- 
ular sentiment  taking  effect  in  the  leg- 
islatures of  January  next  which  shall 
reinforce  and  supplement  all  other 
methods  of  securing  the  advantages  of 
an  independent  railroad  system  for 
Boston  and  New  Hampshire  and 
Maine,  and  shall  prevent  the  slavery  of 
that  city  and  those  states  to  the 
wealthy  railroad  owners  at  New  York 
city. 

It  is  all  folly  to  say  that  New  York 
city,  even  if  given  the  power  to  do  so, 


will  not  discriminate  against  Boston, 
nor  build  up  at  Boston’s  expense  New 
Jersey  and  southern  Pennsylvania  and 
the  country  extending  westward  along 
the  magnificent  lines  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania company.  Human  nature  is 
sometimes  wicked  and  sometimes  weak. 
Shall  New  York  city  be  wicked  and 
Boston  city  be  weak?  Shall  New 
Hampshire  be  weak  and  cowardly 
when  facing  New  York’s  railroad  mil- 
lions? 

Our  state  has  already  foolishly  and 
without  sufficient  safeguards  surren- 
dered all  its  railroad  lines  to  Boston 
control ; and  until  recently  one  man  in 
a Boston  railroad  office  has  dominated 
and  directed  the  politics  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. Now  our  Boston  master  is  in 
danger  of  being  ruthlessly  seized  and 
made  a helpless  servant  of  a New  York 
master.  New  Hampshire  had  better 
help  him  preserve  his  Boston  system. 

The  only  pretense  for  submission  to 
New  York  and  New  Haven  control  is 
that  more  capital  is  wanted  to  improve 
the  physical  condition  of  the  Boston  & 
Maine  lines  and  that  only  New  York 
can  furnish  the  money  and  the  credit 
needed.  This  argument  is  discredit- 
able to  Boston,  which  can  easily  finance 
a Boston  system  of  roads,  making  a 
New  England  combination  in  every  way 
capable  of  supplying  all  demands  for 
improvement  and  development.  If 
Boston  surrenders  its  railroad  system 
to  New  York  ownership  the  city  will 
deserve  to  see,  as  once  hitherto,  every 
ocean  steamship  withdrawn  from  sail- 
ing between  Boston  and  Europe  and 
transferred  to  New  York  harbor. 

I ask  the  New  Hampshire  newspa- 
pers to  join  the  contest  against  the 
merger — especially  the  Manchester 
Union,  whose  treasurer  is  an  anti-rail- 
road candidate  for  governor.  Republi- 
cans should  take  the  lead  and  the 
Democrats  will  follow  and  our  legisla- 
ture will  be  unanimous  against  the  seiz- 
ure of  our  railroads  by  New  York  City. 
It  will  be  a blunder  of  the  first  magni- 
tude for  the  Republicans  to  wait  for 
the  Democrats  to  take  the  lead. 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

June  22,  1908. 


SUPPLEMENT 


PEACE-HARMONY 

MR.  CHANDLER  URGES  THAT  BY- 
GONES BE  BY-GONES. 

Is  Grateful  to  Stump  Orators — Agrees 
with  Platform  Republicans — While 
the  Lamp  Holds  Out  to  Burn  the 
Vilest  Sinner  May  Return. 

The  free  Republicans  of  New  Hamp- 
shire ought  to  be  sincerely  and  pro- 
foundly grateful  to  the  reform  orators 
who  are  so  energetically  enlightening 
others  in  their  political  duty  to  nominate 
a candidate  for  governor  who  shall  be 
independent  of  the  great  railroad  to 
whose  shortcomings  and  enormities,  • 
physical  and  political,  they  have  re- 
cently awakened. 

Churchill  and  D.  C.  Remich  Should 
be  Encouraged. 

Messrs.  Churchill  and  D.  C.  Remich 
are  especially  to  be  thanked  for  having 
repented  of  all  their  railroad  subservi- 
ency in  the  past  and  for  their  efforts  to 
undo  some  of  the  wrongs  they  did  while 
laboring  and  voting  to  sustain  the  free 
pass  system,  which  has  been  at  the 
bottom  of  all  our  railroad  woes,  form- 
ing their  strongest  and  most  im- 
pregnable support. 

Pillsbury’s  Repentance  Most  Gratify- 
ing. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  also  should  be  wel- 
comed to  the  rostrum  by  attentive 
audiences,  and  if  they  think  his  repent- 
ance is  deep  and  penetrating  and  that 
his  promises  for  the  future  are  sincere, 
they  should  nominate  him  for  governor 
— if  they  cannot  find  a better  repre- 
sentative of  reform. 


Francis  H.  Buffum,  Free  Pass  Orator 
— a Delightful  Penitent. 

There  are  others  remorseful.  Here 
comes  my  friend  Reverend  Francis  H. 
Buffum;  a convert,  a repentant,  an 
unexpected  orator  of  righteousness;  a 
Saul  of  wickedness  converted  into  a 
Paul  of  goodness  and  glory.  My  heart 
was  pierced  by  an  arrow  of  grief  when 
in  the  legislature  of  1907,  he  held  aloft 
the  free  pass  which  the  wicked  Tuttle 
had  horribly  forced  upon  him,  and  cried 
out:  “ This  is  what  we  wanted  and  this 
is  what  we  mean  to  keep.”  And  they 
did! 

Now  a great  light  has  come  to  him 
and  he  is  doing  works  meet  for  repent- 
ance. He  should  be  welcomed  and 
added  to  the  quartette — Churchill, 
Remich,  Pillsbury  and  Streeter — mak- 
ing five  instead  of  four  distinguished 
citizens  who  are  entitled  as  penitents 
at  the  altar  to  invite  other  sinners  to 
the  confessional  and  the  imperative 
work  of  righteousness. 

Mr.  Streeter  Much  Needed  on  the 

Rostrum — He  Can  Furnish  Written 
Evidence. 

The  most  competent  member  of  the 
quintette,  Mr.  Streeter,  is,  however,  in- 
excusably absent  from  duty  without 
leave.  He  led  the  movement  of  the 
penitents  to  Boston  where  they  assured 
Mr.  Taft  of  their  omnipotence  and  took 
the  leadership  of  his  movement  in  New 
Hampshire.  Now  if  Pillsbury  is  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  Taft,  if  the 
only  candidate  who  can  ward  off  the 
fearful  Remich  threat  that  the  Demo- 
cratic judge,  George  H.  Bingham,  shall 
be  the  next  governor,  there  can  be  no 
repentant  sinner  put  upon  the  stump 
who  can  make  clear  the  need  of  re- 
form and  Pillsbury  like  Mr.  Streeter. 
He  knows  all  past  wickedness;  for  he 
was  a leader  and  disseminator  of  it  all. 
What  a vision  he  could  unfold  of 
moneys  corruptly  expended  and  passes 
distributed  for  dishonest  purposes ! 
Details  from  others  would  not  be 
needed ; he  can  give  them  all  and  be 


2 


a chosen  vessel  of  wrath  and  a useful 
instrument  in  forever  purging  New 
Hampshire  politics  of  the  slightest 
taint  of  Mr.  Tuttle’s  railroad  wicked- 
ness. 

Mercy  and  Charity  for  Everybody. 

But  while  these  apostles  of  purity 
and  righteousness  should  be  welcomed 
in  their  sincere  advocacy  of  reform, 
they  should  be  charitable  to  others. 
Each  one  of  them  should  say : . ‘ ‘ That 
mercy  I to  others  show,  that  mercy 
show  to  me.”  Let  by-gones  be  by- 
gones. Do  not  reproach  Colonel  Quin- 
by  on  account  of  any  fault  that  can 
be  found  in  his  record  as  an  offset  to 
all  his  good  deeds.  Rather  say,  “We 
are  all  miserable  sinners,”  and  then  go 
ahead  with  new  works  of  righteous- 
ness. 

A Glance  at  By-Gones  Only  to  Dis- 
miss Them  Forever. 

When  the  legislature  of  1897  gave  Mr. 
Tuttle  the  power  to  donate  free  passes 
to  paupers  “ and  others,”  Mr.  Pillsburv 
as  a member,  did  his  part. 

In  the  legislature  of  1899  a provision 
against  free  passes  was  shunted  to  a con- 
stitutional convention.  Mr.  D.  C.  Rem- 
ich  advocated  this  trick  and  voted 
for  it.  Mr.  Pillsbury  voted  for  it. 

In  the  convention  of  1902  every  mem- 
ber had  a free  pass.  Mr.  Streeter  had 
distributed  them  and  presided,  and  a 
clause  against  free  passes  was  voted 
down,  221  to  101;  Mr.  Pillsbury  voting 
for  free  passes. 

In  the  legislature  of  1903  the  light 
was  renewed,  and  action  against  free 
passes  negatived,  191  to  140.  Winston 
Churchill  voted  for  free  passes.  D.  C. 
Remich  voted  against  them ! 

In  the  legislature  of  1905  nothing  was 
done  against  free  passes.  Reformers 
Churchill  and  Pillsbury  were  members. 

InU.  S.  Sen.  Document  63  of  January 
14,  1899,  in  the  list  of  free-pass-riders  on 
page  19  is  to  be  found:  “ R.  W.  Pills- 
bury complimentary  ”;  and  on  page  29, 
“R.  W.  Pillsbury,  services.” 

In  January,  1901,  Mr.  John  W.  San- 
born and  Mr.  F.  S.  Streeter,  coadjutor, 
summoned  to  Concord  Mr.  Pillsbury 
with  hundreds  of  other  annual  pass- 
holders  to  defeat  me  for  re-election  as 
senator — which  they  did.  Mr.  Pillsbury 
has  made  public  confession;  but  says 
that  he  went  home  disgusted.  Yet  he 


was  noisy  and  vehement  in  his  hostility 
to  me;  and  during  the  last  moments 
of  the  canvass,  just  before  the  caucus, 
he  was  boisterously  offering  to  bet 
money  that  I would  be  defeated  by  a 
big  majority  for  Mr.  Burnham. 

To  the  Republicans  of  New  Hamp- 
shire and  to  the  above  quintette  with 
their  own  records  before  them ; to 
Messrs.  Churchill,  sinner,  Remich,  sin- 
ner, Pillsbury,  sinner,  and  Buffum, 
sinner,  and  Streeter,  chief  of  sinners,  I 
submit  that  there  should  be  no  crim- 
ination and  no  recrimination  ; but  that 
all  of  us  should  unite  in  securing  from 
a true  and  willing  state  convention 
suitable  anti-railroad  and  anti-corrup- 
tion declarations,  and  the  nomination 
of  a candidate  whose  character  and 
temperament  fit  him  for  the  canvass 
and  for  the  becoming  performance  of 
duty  when  inaugurated  as  governor. 

A Gentle  and  Gentlemanly  Candidate 
Needed. 

Is  Mr.  Pillsbury  such  a candidate,  in- 
asmuch as  he  began  his  active  canvass 
this  year  by  saying  of  Governor  Floyd, 
whom  in  1906  he  had  begged  should 
be  nominated,  that  he  was  nominated 
by  “fraud,  bribery,  corruption  and 
ballot-box  stuffing  ’ ’ and  that  he  is  seek- 
ing to  name  his  successor  “ by  the  same 
corrupt  methods”;  and  by  attacking 
Senator  Gallinger,  Mr.  Quinby,  Mr.  W. 
Parker  Straw  and  various  other  gentle- 
men of  ordinarily  decent  behavior;  as 
well  as  all  the  weekly  newspaper  pro- 
prietors of  the  state? 

Is  our  state  ticket  to  be  strengthened 
by  Mr.  Pillsbury  as  a candidate ; is  Mr. 
Taft’s  plurality  to  be  made  adequate 
by  such  a leader  of  that  ticket? 

The  Oratory  Good — The  Platform 

Republicans  on  the  Right  Track. 

So  far  as  the  speeches  made  by  the 
orators  now  before  the  public  relate  to 
other  propositions  than  a demand  for 
Mr.  Pillsbury’s  nomination,  they  seem, 
as  a general  statement,  to  be  apt  and 
meritorious.  Exceptions  might  be 
named.  Commendable  also  are  most  of 
the  principles  asserted  by  the  Platform 
Republicans,  Professor  James  A.  Tufts, 
chairman,  Mr.  Sherman  E.  Burroughs, 
principal  exponent. 

Their  requests,  mostly  just,  will  be 
complied  with  by  the  state  convention. 
There  is  no  need  of  the  pending  public 


3 


meetings  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the 
principles  advocated.  But  to  hold  such 
meetings  is  the  privilege  and  the  duty 
of  the  speakers;  and  they  should  go 
forward  if  for  no  other  reason  in  order 
to  afford  a relief  for  the  over-burdened 
consciences  of  the  late  servants  of  Mr. 
Tuttle.  There  is  also  much  need  of 
them  if  Republicans  are  to  be  con- 
vinced that  Mr.  Pillsbury  is  the  best 
candidate  for  governor. 

How  About  Tax  Laws,  Physical  Val- 
uation and  Anti-Merger? — Questions 

Asked  of  the  Orators  and  Platforms, 
Are  They  to  be  Answered? 

It  is  with  regret  that  as  an  earnest 
sympathizer  with  the  orators  now  upon 
the  stump  and  with  the  Platform  Re- 
publicans who  have  succeeded  the  Lin- 
coln club  in  their  anti-railroad  cam- 
paign, I am  obliged  to  differ  from  them 
in  some  particulars,  if  I understand 
their  attitude  rightly.  I make  my 
points  by  asking  them  these  questions : 

Messrs.  Churchill,  Pillsbury,  D.  C. 
Remich,  Streeter,  Buffum,  Burroughs 
and  Tufts: 

I. 

Are  you  in  favor  of  immediate  legis- 
lation so  changing  the  existing  law 
that  special  taxes  imposed  under  the 
amended  constitution  shall  not  be 
taken  into  account  in  order  to  reduce 
the  taxation  of  the  railroads  below  that 
of  the  great  bulk  of  the  taxable  prop- 
erty in  the  state  ? 

II. 

Are  you  in  favor  of  a physical  valua- 
tion of  the  railroads  of  the  state  as  a 
basis  for  fixing  fares  and  freights, 
without  allowing  dividends  and  interest 
on  fictitious  capitalization? 

III. 

Are  you  opposed  to  the  merger  of  the 
New  Hampshire  and  Boston  railroads 
with  the  New  York  & New  Haven 
corporation;  taking  the  ownership  and 
control  thereof  from  Boston  to  New 
York  city? 

These  questions  are  vital  to  the  pub- 
lic welfare  and  extremely  pertinent. 

The  Platform  Republicans  have  said 
that  they  are  in  favor  of  postponing 
all  questions  of  taxation  until  (1)  the 
legislature  provides  for  a vote  of  the 
people  on  calling  a constitutional  con- 
vention, (2)  the  people  vote  to  call  it, 


(3)  an  election  of  members,  (4)  the 
meeting  of  the  convention  and  the 
framing  of  amendments,  (5)  the  adop- 
tion of  those  amendments  by  the  people 
and  (6)  the  meeting  of  the  legislature 
to  act  thereunder.  The  Platform  Re- 
publicans have  said  nothing  on  the 
physical  valuation  or  the  merger.  On 
August  15tli  I asked  Professor  Tufts  to 
speak  on  these  points,  but  he  has  not 
yet  done  so.  Mr.  Pillsbury,  as  a part 
of  his  proclamation  of  his  candidacy, 
declared  that  the  merger  would  be 
beneficial  to  New  Hampshire — and  has 
not  avowed  a change  of  opinion,  so  to- 
day he  stands  as  a merger  candidate. 

What  do  you  say  to  my  questions, 
Messrs.  Churchill,  Pillsbury,  D.  O.  Rem- 
ich, Streeter,  Buffum,  Burroughs  and 
Tufts?  Can  you  give  any  good  reason 
for  not  defining  your  positions  as  the 
self-  elected  new  leaders  of  Railroad 
Reform  in  New  Hampshire? 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

August  28,  1908. 


WINSTON  CHURCHILL. 

Mr.  William  E.  Chandler  says  that 
Winston  Churchill  is  an  impossible  per- 
son. He  means,  doubtless,  a person  so 
strange  in  his  statements  and  behavior 
that  it  is  impossible  for  ordinary  mortals 
to  do  business  with  him;  a person  nearer 
to  being  one  daft  than  a sane  person  and 
who  must  therefore  be  ignored  in  com- 
mon life  and  allowed  to  write  unintelli- 
gible matter  to  be  disregarded  by  com- 
monsense  people. 

When  such  a person  says,  as  the  Man- 
chester Union  of  August  24  records, 
that  Quinby,  when  writing  the  Repub- 
lican platform,  “as  a matter  of  fact 
copied  in  ink  what  we  gentlemen  who 
are  identified  with  the  reform  move- 
ment have  written  IN  BLOOD,”  it  is 
only  to  laugh. 

In  truth,  Mr.  Chandler  wrote  the 
platform,  was  not  aware  that  it  was  a 
bloody  deed,  and  we  happen  to  know  he 
never  uses  red  ink. 

But  it  is  a more  serious  question  when 
Mr.  Churchill  deliberately  puts  forth 
continually  monstrous  falsehoods,  as  the 
Manchester  Union  of  August  22  says  he 
did.  The  Boston  & Maine  railroad  never 
undertook  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Taft.  Mr. 
Mellen  and  Mr.  Tuttle  both  announced 
themselves  in  favor  of  Mr.  Taft.  The 
state  convention  of  April  21  expressed 
no  wish  except  one — that  there  should 
be  no  preference  resolution  for  Mr.  Taft, 


4 


and  it  said  this  by  a rising  vote  of  750 
against  25. 

It  is  beginning  to  dawn  upon  ns  that 
common  honest  politicians  should  ex- 
clude Mr.  Churchill  from  consideration 
or  discussion  when  he  makes,  as  the 
Union  of  August  22  reports  him,  a state- 
ment like  the  following: 

“ The  Boston  & Maine  machine  un- 
dertook the  defeat  of  Mr.  Taft  previous 
to  his  visit  to  the  state  and  when  the 
sentiment  for  him  made  itself  so  promi- 
nent they  conceived  and  carried  out  the 
idea  of  an  uninstructed  delegation, 
which  permitted  three  of  the  eight  dele- 
gates to  cast  their  votes  contrary  to  the 
EXPRESSED  WISH  of  the  convention 
which  elected  them.” 

— Concord  Monitor , Sept.  1, 1908. 


REPUBLICAN  RALLIES. 

One  progressive  issue  of  the  campaign 
is:  Shall  the  New  Hampshire  railroads 
be  sold  to  New  York  city?  Mr.  Pillsbury 
has  declared  in  favor  of  this  sale  and 
the  speakers  now  on  the  stump  do  not 
deny  that  they  favor  it. 

Mr.  Burroughs  does  not  answer  my 
inquiries  of  July  31st  and  August  10th, 
nor  Professor  Tufts  my  inquiry  of  Au- 
gust 15tb. 

In  the  absence  of  denial,  I charge  that 
the  present  movement  to  make  Mr. 
Pillsbury  governor  has  for  one  progres- 
sive issue  the  merger  of  the  New  Hamp- 
shire railroads  with  the  New  York  and 
New  Haven  corporation. 

Are  the  Republicans  of  New  Hamp- 
shire in  favor  of  this  merger  ? 

Wm.  E.  Chandler 


REMICH--PILLSBURY. 

THEIR  OPINION  OF  EACH  OTHER. 

[ Concord  Monitor , Aug . 3 1 , 1 908 . ] 

On  the  evening  of  Friday,  August  28, 
General  Daniel  C.  Remich  of  Littleton 
appeared  on  the  public  platform  at 
Milford,  advocating  the  nomination  of 
Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury  for  governor. 
According  to  the  Manchester  Union’s 
report  of  the  meeting,  published  in  that 
paper  on  Saturday,  August  29,  the  chair- 
man ‘ ‘ paid  a glowing  tribute  to  General 
Remich,  whom  he  introduced  as  one  of 


the  great  reform  leaders  in  the  state.” 
From  the  same  report  it  is  to  be  learned 
that  “ Mr.  Remich  closed  with  a glow- 
ing tribute  to  Mr.  Pillsbury.” 

The  words  of  this  “ glowing  tribute  ” 
are,  unfortunately,  not  printed  at  great 
length.  It  is  a pity  that  they  are  not 
available.  It  may  be,  however,  that 
their  tenor  may  be  judged  from  a letter 
which  Mr.  Remich  wrote  to  Mr.  Pills- 
bury on  September  21,  1906,  which  reads 
as  follows : 

‘ ‘ I have  carefully  read  your  explana- 
tion in  today’s  Union  as  to  why  you 
withdrew  from  the  Republican  conven- 
tion in  favor  of  Mr.  Floyd,  and  asked 
your  delegates  to  support  him.  You 
suggest  therein  that  you  have  been 
‘ charged  with  treachery  to  Colonel 
Churchill.’ 

“ I do  not  believe  that  any  supporter 
of  Colonel  Churchill  ever  made  such  a 
statement,  for  the  reason  that  for  many 
months  the  members  of  the  Lincoln  club 
and  the  other  supporters  of  Mr.  Churchill 
have  been  thoroughly  convinced  that 
you  were  a sham  reformer  and  have 
therefore  expected  nothing  at  your 
hands.  Being  of  this  opinion,  the  friends 
of  Mr.  Churchill  gave  out  a statement 
to  the  reporters,  Monday  night,  that 
‘ Mr.  Churchill  would  not  withdraw  in 
favor  of  any  candidate,  or  make  any 
compromise;  that  he  stood  for  great 
principles  of  vital  importance  to  the 
state;  that  he  would  either  win  the 
nomination  or  go  down  to  an  honorable 
defeat.  ’ 

“You  are  well  aware  that  early  in 
your  campaign  I appealed  to  you  many 
times  to  come  out  squarely  for  the  re- 
forms which  the  Lincoln  club  have  since 
advocated.  You  refused  to  accept  my 
advice  and  continued  to  trim  your  sails 
to  catch  the  votes  of  all  classes  and  con- 
ditions, especially  the  support  of  the 
Boston  & Maine  railroad.  At  that  time 
I wrote  you  an  open  letter,  begging  of 
you  ‘ to  nail  your  flag  to  the  mast,  ’ and 
stand  for  the  principles  which  we  have 
succeeded  in  getting  incorporated  into 
the  Republican  platform,  and  suggested 
that  ‘ all  the  world  hated  a trimmer.  ’ 
My  letter  was  so  unsatisfactory  that  you 
refused  to  publish  it. 

‘ ‘ Do  not  waste  any  time  trying  to  ex- 
plain your  conduct  to  members  of  the 
Lincoln  club,  or  to  the  delegates  that 
stood  by  Winston  Churchill  from  first 
to  last.  If  you  have  any  explanation 
that  will  meet  the  approval  of  honorable 
men,  you  had  better  give  it  to  the  204 


5 


magnificent  men  who  so  loyally-  sup- 
ported you,  until  you  withdrew  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Floyd,  who  really  believed  that 
you  were  a reformer  and  could  be  de- 
pended upon, — such  men  as  Sherman  E. 
Burroughs  of  Manchester  and  Lester 
Thurber  of  Nashua.  They  have  a right 
to  charge  you  with  base  treachery,  and 
every  honorable  man  who  knows  the 
facts  will  justify  them  in  making  the 
charge. 

“ 1900  years  ago  there  lived  a Judas 
Iscariot ; in  Revolutionary  times  we 
had  a Benedict  Arnold;  we  now  have  a 
Rosencrans  (sic)  W.  Pillsbury.” 

The  Union  of  August  29,  to  which  we 
have  referred,  does  not  say  whether  it 
endorses  the  encomium  upon  General 
Remich  as  “one  of  the  great  reform 
leaders  of  the  state  ” ; but  in  the  Union 
of  twenty-three  months  earlier,  to  wit, 
in  the  issue  of  September  29,  1906,  there 
appears,  on  the  first  page,  a letter  from 
Mr.  Pillsbury  to  Mr.  Remich  bearing 
these  headlines : “ Mr.  Pillsbury  to  Dan 
Remich  . . . Open  Reply  in  Response  to 
Latter’s  Assertions  . . . Some  Forgotten 
Letters  . . . Trickery  of  Churchill  Sup- 
porters Pointed  Out  . . . Londonderry 
Man  Pays  His  Respects  to  the  Profes- 
sional Politicians.  . . . Ante-Convention 
Promises  That  Were  not  Kept  by  Mak- 
ers.” From  this  letter  the  following 
paragraphs  are  taken: 

“With  characteristic  misrepresenta- 
tion for  which  the  people  of  the  state 
know  you  so  well,  you  state,”  etc. 

“You  have  become  so  discredited  that 
the  people  refuse  to  permit  you  to  rep- 
resent them  even  as  a convention  dele- 
gate.” 

“ Both  you  and  Churchill  were  always 
reckoned  among  the  ‘railroad  forces’ 
when  you  have  been  in  the  legislature, 
and  you  have  constantly  trained  with 
them  until  you  lost  your  annual  ‘ pass,’ 
and  Colonel  Churchill  found  that  the 
people  of  his  district  preferred  another 
for  the  senate  and  the  ‘ railroad  forces  ’ 
would  not  endeavor  to  upset  things  and 
put  him  in.  You  admit  your  constancy 
in  your  letter  to  President  Kimball,  in 
saying:  ‘ I should  continue  as  in  the 
past  to  promote  your  interests,’  ” etc. 


“ It  may  not  be  as  generally  known 
that  Churchill  early  last  winter  solicited 
one  of  the  leading  Boston  and  Maine 
attorneys  to  ‘ fix  it  ’ so  that  he  could  go 
to  the  senate  if  his  affairs  should  be  such 
that  he  could  spend  the  time,  and  as  late 
as  the  springtime  again  made  the  request 
‘ if  not  too  late.’  But  finding,  after  an- 
nouncing his  candidacy,  that  it  had  not 
been  ‘ fixed,’  and  that  a man  who  was 
living  in  the  state  the  year  through  long 
before  his  securing  a summer  home  here, 
and  who  was  familiar  with  state  affairs 
and  had  done  long  service  as  a Republi- 
can, was  manifestly  preferred  by  the 
voters,  he  yielded  to  your  importunities, 
after  you  had  met  with  rebuff  in  many 
other  quarters,  and  consented  to  become 
your  candidate  with  a common  griev- 
ance against  the  railroad,  which  he  de- 
clared later  in  the  campaign  was  his 
‘ only  issue.’  Your  ‘ principles  ’ are  less 
than  eight  months  yours;  up  to  that 
time  you  and  your  candidate  were  with 
the  ‘ railroad.’  ” 

“As  to  being  a sham  reformer  I am 
ready  to  place  my  record  in  public  af- 
fairs against  yours.  I have  never  under- 
taken lobbying;  you  have.  I have  never 
attempted  blackmail  of  men  seeking  leg- 
islation ; your  experience  in  reference  to 
the  charter  of  the  New  Hampshire  Trust 
Company  is  known  to  many,  but  I for- 
bear the  details.  It  is  not  the  only  in- 
teresting experience  that  well-informed 
men  relate  as  to  your  career.  ’ ’ 

These  “ tributes,”  we  submit,  are  quite 
as  ‘ ‘ glowing’  ’ as  any  which  have  been 
declaimed  on  the  stump  this  year.  They 
were  not  struck  off  in  the  burning  heat 
of  an  orator’s  passion.  They  were  writ- 
ten in  cold  blood,  revised,  corrected  and 
given  out  for  publication  deliberately. 
They  are  an  interesting  and  an  instruc- 
tive feature  of  a canvass  like  this  which 
is  now  drawing  to  a close ; and  they  go 
far  to  show  whether  Mr.  Pillsbury  and 
his  comrades  are,  by  their  own  opinions 
of  each  other,  fit  persons  to  receive  the 
administration  of  state  affairs  or  the 
direction  of  the  Republican  party  in 
New  Hampshire. 


f 


AFTERWORD 


Mr.  Chandler’s  Outline  of  Facts  in  History  of 
Railroad  Reform 


The  New  Republican  Leaders  in  New  Hamp- 
shire—Messrs.  Churchill  and  Pillsbury, 

D.  C.  Remich  and  Streeter — The 
Lamb  and  the  Wplf— The 
Hornet  and  the 
Spider 


As  an  afterword  to  my  pamphlet  on 
“Railroad  Reform  in  New  Hampshire, 
Ancient,  Modern  and  Future,”  and  to 
my  other  papers  added  to  the  first,  I 
conclude  merely  to  outline  the  facts 
which  stand  out  from  those  writings 
and  other  current  political  history. 

I — The  Day  of  Slavery. 

Prior  to  1901,  New  Hampshire  for  20 
years  or  more  had  been  in  a state  of 
slavery  to  railroad  free  passes  and 
railroad  political  domination  corruptly 
obtained  and  wickedly  used.  During 
all  that  period,  although  the  facts  were 
steadily  proclaimed  publicly  by  me,  yet 
I was  joined  in  my  protest  by  not  over 
two  or  three  influential  citizens  of  the 
state.  All  the  others,  including  sub- 
stantially all  the  politicians,  either 
joined  in  or  succumbed  to  railroad  pow- 
er and  free  passes. 

In  January,  1901,  after  having  been 
renominated  for  United  States  sena- 
tor in  1895  by  224  to  59,  I was  defeated 
by  198  for  Burnham,  47  for  Chandler,  29 
for  Baker,  23  for  Sulloway  and  22  for 
Quinby.  The  leaders  of  the  movement 
Who  conducted  the  corrupt  canvass 
against  me  from  room  two,  Eagle  ho- 
tel, Concord,  were  Mr.  John  W.  San- 
born and  Mr.  Frank  S.  Streeter,  aided 
by  Mr.  Rosecrans  W.  Pillsbury,  who 
was  craven  in  his  servility  to  the  rail- 
road, while  noisy  and  vehement  in  his 
hostility  to  me.  (See  Mr.  Pillsbury’s 


confession,  in  his  own  recent  words  on 
page  13) — and  with  my  defeat  there  en- 
sued a deeper  submission  than  ever  to 
railroad  slavery,  with  apparently  no 
prospect  whatever  of  any  rebellion  for 
years  to  come. 

II— The  Dawn  of  Freedom  in  Nation 
and  State. 

Most  fortunately,  in  1904,  with  the 
election  as  president  by  the  people  of 
Theodore  Roosevelt,  came  national  rail- 
road reform.  Railroad  corruption  and 
free  passes  were  condemned  and  for- 
bidden and  the  prospect  of  freedom 
from  railroad  and  plutocratic  domina- 
tion of  the  national  and  state  govern- 
ments came  in  sight.  In  New  Hamp- 
shire, in  1906,  the  Lincoln  club  was 
formed,  and  its  principles  adopted  and 
proclaimed  without  objection  by  the 
Republican  state  convention.  Progress 
was  necessarily  made  by  piecemeal,  but 
Governor  Floyd  was  true  to  the  plat- 
form, the  legislature  passed  useful  leg- 
islation, although  not  sufficient,  and 
the  session  adjourned  with  prospects 
bright  for  the  easy  and  complete  suc- 
cess of  at  least  railroad  reform  in  New 
Hampshire,  coincident  with  like  pro- 
gress in  the  nation,  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  national  administration; — 
and  the  simple  minded  dozen  managers 
of  the  Lincoln  club  dissolved  their  or- 
ganization. 


28 


III— The  Day  of  Cunning  Plot  and 
Selfish  Conspiracy. 

With  the  field  abandoned  by  the  Lin- 
coln club,  Mr.  Churchill  fell  into  a new 
scheme.  On  the  27th  day  of  May,  1907, 
he  met  Mr.  Pillsbury  and  agreed  with 
him  not  to  be  again  a candidate  for 
governor,  but  in  due  time  to  announce 
himself  in  favor  of  Pillsbury  for  gov- 
ernor, which  he  did.  The  two  associated 
themselves  with  Mr.  Streeter,  who  had 
discharged  himself  or  been  discharged 
as  the  chief  railroad  attorney  and 
political  agent.  They  had  made  him 
national  committeeman  to  the  defeat  of 
Senator  Gallinger.  He  had  been  in  1906 
a candidate  to  be  a Greenleaf  delegate 
from  Ward  Four,  Concord,  but  had 
been  defeated,  and  had  procured  a 
Greenleaf  proxy  and  voted  steadily  for 
Mr.  Pillsbury.  Here  were  two  prac- 
ticed schemers  and  one  novice.  The  plan 
was  simple;  the  rewards  to  be  great. 
They  created  themselves  the  leaders  of 
the  Taft  movement  in  New  Hampshire 
and  the  managers  of  railroad  reform  in 
the  state;  and  with  a few  associates 
they  waited  upon  Mr.  Taft  in  Boston, 
announced  their  leadership  and  ten- 
dered him  the  New  Hampshire  delega- 
tion to  Chicago.  With  the  strong  tend- 
ency among  New  Hampshire  Republi- 
cans to  think  that  a more  available 
and  equally  sagacious  and  capable  can- 
didate for  president  could  be  found, 
they  succeeded  in  making  an  issue  on 
instructions  or  preference  resolutions 
which  gave  them  prominence  as  Taft 
boomers.  The  story  is  well  known.  On 
a test  vote  which  they  forced  in  the 
convention  they  were  defeated,  750  to  25. 

Mr.  Taft  was  nominated,  but  still  they 
went  pressing  on;  Mr.  Churchill,  not 
to  be  governor  but  to  have  a cabinet 
place  or  foreign  mission;  Mr.  Pillsbury 
to  be  governor;  Mr.  Streeter  to  be  a 
United  States  senator  or  a United 
States  judge.  One  more  associate  with 
traits  like  the  worst  of  theirs  was 
needed  and  found  in  Mr.  D.  C.  Remich. 
When  Mr.  Pillsbury  in  the  convention 
of  1906  had  swung  over  to  Mr.  Floyd, 
Mr.  Remich  had  called  him  a Judas 
Iscariot  and  a Benedict  Arnold;  but 
what  was  a little  difference  like  that 
among  friends  engaged  in  their  con- 
spiracy? They  decided  to  face  the 
world  as  the  original  Taft  champions 
and  as  the  genuine  railroad  reformers— 
Streeter,  who  had  been  the  great  chief- 
tain of  railroad  wickedness;  Pillsbury 
and  Remich,  the  constant  free  pass 


riders  and  railroad  slaves,  and  Church- 
ill, the  sickened  politician  and  guileless 
novelist. 

There  would  seem  not  to  be, — indeed 
would  not  be — any  reason  for  giving 
attention  to  such  a presumptuous 
movement  towards  political  leadership 
and  power  were  it  not  that  there  is  a 
possibility  of  its  success.  This  grows 
only  out  of  the  neglect  and  failure  of 
the  Lincoln  club  to  present  any  candi- 
date. The  only  man  discussed  ran 
away  from  his  duty.  The  Platform 
Republicans  are  a new  and  slow  birth; 
they  ask  for  the  adoption  of  principles 
and  seek  to  elect  true  legislators,  but 
they  have  reached  no  choice  for  gov- 
ernor and  have  condemned  the  one 
candidate  most  likely  to  carry  to  suc- 
cess with  perfect  fidelity  the  reform 
principles  which  will  be  adopted  by  the 
state  convention.  Behind  the  Streeter- 
Pillsbury-Remich  movement  .is  the 
Manchester  Union — which  is  a great 
power,  constantly  pounding  at  the 
gates  of  the  Republican  voters.  These 
are  motive  power  in  favor  of  Pillsbury. 

Can  a Candidate  thus  help  Nominate 
Himself? 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  course  of 
Messrs.  Pillsbury,  Streeter,  Remich  and 
the  men  they  control  seems  to  be  such 
as  to  make  it  absolutely  impossible  that 
Mr.  Pillsbury  should  succeed  in  obtain- 
ing the  nomination  for  governor.  May 
it  be  supposed  that  the  others  do  not 
expect  this  and  do  not  card,  if  they 
can  use  temporarily  Mr.  Pillsbury  and 
the  Union  for  their  other  purposes? 

The  real  leaders  of  a political  party, 
however  earnest  in  fact  may  be  the 
controversies  leading  up  to  a nomina- 
tion for  a candidate  to  be  voted  for  by 
the  people  on  election  day,  do  not  wish 
any  candidate  himself  to  speak  vio- 
lently or  abusively;  or  to  assail  bitterly 
any  members  of  his  own  party  by 
speech  or  writing,  prior  to  the  nomina- 
tion. If  such  work  is  to  be  done  it  is 
done  by  others.  Such  a candidate  is 
never  nominated. 

Is  it  possible  that  the  result  can  be 
otherwise  in  Mr.  Pillsbury’ s case? 
Mark  what,  while  pressing  his  candi- 
dacy, he  and  his  above  associates  have 
done  to  arouse  natural  and  inevitable 
opposition  to  him  in  his  own  party! 

I— The  Attack  upon  Senator  Gallinger 

Their  attacks  upon  Mr.  Tuttle,  in 
view  of  their  abandonment  of  further 


29 


service  for  him  and  their  desire  to 
punish  their  former  master,  may  be 
allowable.  But  what  excuse  is  there 
for  their  early  and  unjust  and  unkind 
assaults  upon  Senator  Gallinger — even 
if  their  plan  is  to  have  Mr.  Streeter 
take  his  place  as  senator?  Do  such  at- 
tacks tend  to  nominate  Mr.  Pillsbury 
and  to  retire  Senator  Gallinger? 

II— Obloquy  Heaped  on  the  Country 
Weekly  Papers. 

The  country  weekly  newspapers  of 
New  Hampshire  are  not  rich — perhaps 
their  circulation  is  not  large.  It  is  not 
large  for  any  one  of  them,  but  as  a 
whole  they  have  a vast  number  of 
readers.  Why  should  the  treasurer  of 
the  Manchester  Union — hoping  to  be 
governor — invite  their  hostility  by  irri- 
tating and  unkind  assaults  in  his  pre- 
tentious sheet?  Will  those  help  us 
elect  him  if  he  is  nominated? 

Ill— The  Attack  on  Gov.  Floyd. 

Mr.  Pillsbury’s  violent  attack  upon 
Governor  Floyd  is  incomprehensible, 
coming  from  a man  who  expects  to  be 
nominated  and  elected  as  the  governor’s 
successor. 

Two  years  ago  Mr.  Pillsbury  begged 
to  have  Floyd  nominated,  when  he  saw 
himself  defeated.  Today  he  says  he 
was  nominated  by  ‘fraud,  bribery,  cor- 
ruption and  ballot-box  stuffing,”  and  is 
trying  to  name  his  successor  “by  the 
same  corrupt  methods.” 

Can  we  elect  such  a man  governor, 
even  if  we  nominate  him? 

IV — Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Assault  on  the 
Amoskeag  Corporation. 

As  if  he  had  not  heavily  enough  bur- 
dened himself  with  enemies,  Mr.  Pills- 
bury drags  into  his  newspaper  and  de- 
nounces the  Amoskeag  Manufacturing 
company,  and  asserts  that  its  man- 
agers, like  those  of  the  Boston  & Maine 
railroad,  are  seeking  to  control  our 
politics.  On  August  15th  the  Union 
boldly  said  of  Mr.  W.  Parker  Straw 
that  he  had  asserted  that  “the  Amos- 
keag proposes  to  have  delegates  whom 
it  could  vote  for  whomsoever  it  thought 
best  at  convention  time,”  and  after  the 
Mirror  on  the  same  day  denied  the 
truth  of  the  charge  the  Union  re- 
peated it  on  August  17,  speaking  of 
Treasurer  Dumaine  thus: 

“From  his  Boston  office  and  environ- 
ment he  manifestly  agrees  with  Mr. 
Tuttle  that  things  political  should  be 


done  here  regardless  of  all  attempts 
and  wishes  on  the  part  of  friends  in 
New  Hampshire.” 

“Mr.  Dumaine  came  from  Boston 
with  the  information  that  the  mills 
should  be  shut  down  entirely  for  two 
weeks  ending  Labor  Day  and  that  tick- 
ets for  delegates  to  the  state  conven- 
tion in  opposition  to  the  Pillsbury 
ticket  should  be  arranged.” 

Must  we  nominate  a governor  who 
thus  heedlessly  seeks  the  enmity  of  a 
corporation  so  many  of  whose  owners 
and  operatives  we  expect  to  vote  for 
our  candidate  for  governor  and  for  Mr. 
Taft  for  president?  What  has  the 
Amoskeag  yet  done  to  require  such 
treatment? 

V—  Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Denunciation  of 

Col.  Quinby. 

Mr.  Pillsbury’s  assault  upon  Colonel 
Quinby  is  most  censurable;  an  impos- 
sible thing  for  any  candidate  to  do— ex- 
cept Mr.  Pillsbury.  Colonel  Quinby 
would  not,  in  order  to  be  governor,  per- 
sonally assail  Mr.  Pillsbury  as  he  has 
been  himself  assailed  by  the  latter. 
That  is  not  a candidate’s  proper  func- 
tion— personal  abuse  of  his  contestant 
for  a nomination  to  come  from  the 
political  party  to  which  they  both  be- 
long. The  false  charges  made  and  re- 
iterated by  the  Union  against  Mr. 
Quinby  make  Mr.  Pillsbury  a most  un- 
available candidate  for  governor. 

VI—  Mr.  Pillsbury’s  Committal  to  the 

Railroad  Merger. 

With  all  these  impolitic  attacks  made 
by  Mr.  Pillsbury  as  a candidate,  there 
is  one  scheme  of  transcendent  import- 
ance to  New  Hampshire— perhaps  more 
than  all  the  other  subjects  which  he 
and  the  Union  undertake  to  discuss  in 
reference  to  his  candidacy.  He  does  not 
denounce  the  merger  of  the  Boston  and 
New  Hampshire  railroads  into  the  New 
York  & New  Haven  system.  If  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire  ought  to 
arouse  themselves  in  view  of  any 
threatening  calamity,  it  should  be 
against  the  merger  scheme — which  is 
not  dead  but  only  sleeping.  But  this 
is  what  Mr.  Pillsbury  said  in  its  favor 
as  a part  of  his  platform  on  which  he 
proclaimed  himself  a candidate  for  gov- 
ernor: “In  my  judgment  the  proposed 
merger  of  the  Boston  & Maine  and  the 
New  York,  New  Haven  & Hartford 
railroads  would  be  beneficial  to  the  in- 
dustrial interests  of  the  state.”  This 


30 


merger  question  is  discussed  by  me  on 
other  pages.  It  should  have  a wise  and 
thoughtful  examination  by  all  New 
Hampshire  voters. 

The  Danger  of  Defeat  at  the  Polls. 

It  is  my  duty  to  continue  to  empha- 
size the  danger  of  state  and  national 
defeat  for  the  Republicans.  No  wise 
man  will  belittle  the  danger.  Local 
fights  in  New  Hampshire,  New  York 
and  Ohio  are  making  doubtful  both  lo- 
cal elections  and  the  presidential  con- 
test. 

Shall  Messrs.  Pillsbury  and  Streeter 
and  Remich  make  doubtful  the  result 
in  New  Hampshire?  Mr.  Remich  is  their 
spokesman  when  he  says: 

“If  they  * * * * succeed  in  nom- 
inating Henry  B.  Quinby  they  will  see 
George  H.  Bingham  * * * * or  some 
other  * * * * Democrat  of  his 


stamp  occupying  the  gubernatorial 
chair.” 

The  above  seems  to  be  the  attitude 
of  the  three  former  agents  and  servants 
of  the  Boston  & Maine  railroad.  They 
say:  We  are  to  be  the  controlling 
leaders  of  the  Republican  party  of  New 
Hampshire.  We  are  the  confidential 
and  only  representatives  of  Taft  and 
Hitchcock  and  have  a steam-roller  of 
our  own  which  we  will  use  to  crush  all 
opponents.  If  we  cannot  do  it  we  will 
elect  a Democrat,  Mr.  George  H.  Bing- 
ham, as  governor. 

It  can  hardly  be  that  the  sensible  and 
true  Republicans  of  New  Hampshire 
have  fallen  into  such  cowardice  as  to 
submit  to  the  degradation  which  is 
now  threatened  against  them  by  the 
New  York,  New  Haven  & Hartford 
railroad  and  its  agents. 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

August  24,  1908. 


PLATFORM  REPUBLICANS. 

Mr.  Chandler  Submits  a Request  for  a Call 
for  a Meeting. 


Concord,  N.  H.,  August  15,  1908. 
Professor  James  A.  Tufts,  President  of  the  Platform 

Republicans , Exeter , N.  II. 

Dear  Sir  : I have  the  honor  to  request  that  you  will 
call  a meeting  of  the  Platform  Republicans  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  three  questions : 

(1)  The  elimination  from  the  platform  of  Article  7 
providing  for  the  postponement  of  all  legislation  relative 
to  taxation  until  after  further  opinions  of  the  judges  and 
the  adoption  of  new  constitutional  amendments ; 

(2)  The  question  of  demanding  the  physical  valuation 
of  the  railroads  of  the  state  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in 
the  determination  what  are  to  be  just  rates  of  fares  and 
freights ; 

(3)  The  approaching  merger  of  the  New  Hampshire 
railroads  with  the  New  York,  New  Haven  and  Hartford 
corporation  and  the  transfer  of  their  control  from  Boston 
to  New  York  City. 

In  your  call  please  define  with  precision  what  rights 
and  privileges  in  companionship  with  the  29  are  to  be 
possessed  and  enjoyed  by  the  senders-in  of  their  names. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

Wm.  E.  Chandler. 


Exeter,  August  19,  1908. 

Hon.  Wm.  E.  Chandler. 

My  Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  15th  was  not 
received  until  the  17th.  It  shall  have  my  early  con- 
sideration and  you  shall  hear  from  me  again. 

Very  truly  yours, 

J.  A.  Tufts. 

[No  reply  received  up  to  September  7.] 


THE  NEW  LEADERS  OF 

RAILROAD  REFORM 

IN  NEW  HAMPSHIRE 
1908 


WINSTON  CHURCHILL 
ROSECRANS  W.  PILLSBURY 
DANIEL  C.  REMICH 
FRANK  S.  STREETER 


THE  LAMB 
THE  WOLF 
THE  HORNET 
THE  SPIDER 


■ MM 


